Appeals court upholds injunction against Florida 'Stop WOKE Act' restrictions on university teaching

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has upheld a preliminary injunction blocking Florida from enforcing key provisions of the state’s Individual Freedom Act – commonly known as the “Stop WOKE Act” – against professors at the state’s public colleges and universities.

Florida enacted the Individual Freedom Act in 2022 as part of Florida GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis’s broader effort to combat what supporters describe as “woke ideology” in education and the workplace. 

Among other things, the law restricts instruction on certain topics involving race, sex, and discrimination in K–12 schools, colleges and universities, and workplace training.

The decision, issued Monday in Pernell v. Florida Board of Governors, leaves in place a district court order barring enforcement of provisions that prohibit classroom instruction or training that “espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels” students to believe any of eight concepts relating to race, color, sex, or national origin.

Those prohibited concepts include the ideas that one race or sex is morally superior to another, that individuals bear responsibility for historical wrongs committed by members of their race or sex, or that values such as merit, hard work, or colorblindness are inherently racist or sexist.

Writing for the 2-1 majority, Judge Britt Grant, a Trump appointee, concluded that the challenged provisions likely violate the First Amendment because they discriminate on the basis of viewpoint.

“The ideas Florida targets may well be noxious. Or maybe not. Either way, in this context the First Amendment trusts students to figure it out for themselves,” Grant wrote.

The court rejected Florida’s argument that professors’ classroom instruction constitutes government speech that the state may regulate without constitutional constraint simply because professors are public employees. 

Instead, the panel emphasized the longstanding tradition of academic freedom at public universities and distinguished higher education from K–12 schools, where states exercise broader authority over curriculum and classroom instruction.

The majority also rejected Florida’s reliance on prior decisions recognizing institutional control over academic programs, concluding that the challenged provisions impose sweeping viewpoint-based restrictions on university teaching that are unlikely to survive First Amendment scrutiny. Senior Judge Charles R. Wilson, a Clinton appointee, joined the opinion.

Judge Barbara Lagoa dissented, concluding that Florida is entitled to greater deference in determining the curriculum taught at its public universities. She reasoned that because the state creates and funds its universities, it possesses broader authority to regulate instructional content than the majority acknowledged.

\Although the court emphasized that its decision addresses only the challenged provisions and leaves open the possibility that narrower regulations or different applications of the law could survive constitutional review, the ruling reinforces strong First Amendment protections for professors' classroom speech at public universities.

The preliminary injunction will remain in effect while the case proceeds in the district court.