The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a constitutional challenge to the use of “bias response teams” on college campuses, leaving intact lower court rulings that upheld these programs as consistent with the First Amendment.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the decision not to take the case, signaling concerns about the potential chilling effect such teams may have on free speech.
The case, Speech First Inc. v. Michigan State University, centered on whether the university’s Bias Response Team—which allows students to report incidents of perceived bias or offensive speech—violates students’ constitutional rights by deterring lawful expression.
The conservative group Speech First argued that these systems act as de facto “speech police,” creating an environment where students self-censor for fear of being investigated or reprimanded.
Lower courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, rejected that claim. They found that because the bias response team lacked disciplinary authority—it could not punish students directly—it did not constitute a First Amendment violation. Instead, the team was described as primarily offering support to those who reported bias incidents and encouraging voluntary conversations.
However, in a pointed dissent from the Court’s refusal to hear the case, Justice Thomas criticized the passive characterization of these teams. “Even absent formal sanctions, government action that chills speech is subject to constitutional scrutiny,” he wrote. Thomas warned that the mere presence of bias response mechanisms can lead students to avoid controversial topics altogether, undermining the core mission of higher education.
Justice Alito joined Thomas’s dissent, writing separately to emphasize that many students may perceive these teams as an implicit threat, regardless of the lack of explicit punishment. “The chilling of speech does not always require direct penalties,” Alito noted. “Sometimes, the specter of administrative inquiry is punishment enough.”
Bias response teams have become common across U.S. college campuses over the past decade, often as part of broader diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Supporters argue they provide necessary channels for students to report discrimination or hostile environments, while critics see them as tools of ideological conformity that stifle dissenting viewpoints.
The Supreme Court’s decision to stay out of the debate—at least for now—means the legal status of bias response teams will likely continue to be tested in lower courts across the country. With a growing number of free speech lawsuits challenging campus policies, the issue could return to the high court in the future.
For now, Michigan State and other universities with similar programs retain the ability to operate bias response teams without fear of federal judicial intervention, even as debate over their implications for free expression remains far from settled.
