First Amendment and UF

Really interesting First Amendment order out of the 11th Circuit involving a UF law student and some really horrible speech.  2-1 in favor of UF.  Branch write the opinion, Lagoa joins, and Newsom dissents.

From the introduction:

The University of Florida ("UF") expelled Preston Damsky,
a law student, for posts he made on X (formerly Twitter), including
one post that stated, "Jews must be abolished by any means necessary." Damsky then sued Chris Summerlin, UF's Dean of Students, arguing that UF violated his First Amendment rights. UF
now appeals the district court's order granting Damsky a
preliminary injunction and requiring UF to reinstate him as a
student. We find that UF is likely to succeed on the merits because
Damsky' s speech was likely not protected by the First Amendment.
UF was allowed to regulate Damsky's speech because, particularly
when read in context, his statements were reasonably interpreted
as a call for extralegal violence that caused a serious disruption to
other students' educational experiences and the school's ability to
provide its services. Accordingly, we grant UF's motion for a stay
of the district court's injunction pending appeal.

From the dissent:

Based on a post that Preston Damsky published on his
personal "X'' account,* the University of Florida ("University" or
"UF") expelled him from its law school, just a semester shy of his
expected graduation. Damsky sued on the ground that his
expulsion violated the First Amendment, and he sought a
preliminary injunction requiring the University to reinstate him. In
a thorough opinion, Judge Allen Winsor granted Damsky
preliminary injunctive relief, prohibiting the University from
"continuing to take adverse actions against" him and ordering him
returned to "normal standing" at the law school. Dist. Ct. Order,
Nov. 24, 2025, at 28.
Today, this Court stays Judge Winsor's order. I respectfully
dissent. The University hasn't shown a reasonable likelihood that
it will succeed in its effort to vacate or modify the injunction,
which, to my mind, correctly concludes that Damsky's posthowever
disgusting- enjoys constitutional protection. 

 

*Both the majority and the dissent explain that Twitter is now X.  I think everyone knows that now, just like we all know that opinions from the old 5th Circuit control per Bonner!