Estimated Time to Read: 7 minutes
A federal judge has temporarily blocked major provisions of Texas Senate Bill 2972 (SB 2972), a law limiting expressive activities and demonstrations on public university campuses. The ruling, issued on October 14, 2025, by Senior U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra in Fellowship of Christian University Students v. Eltife, grants a preliminary injunction against the University of Texas System, preventing enforcement of four key provisions of the law.
Judge Ezra wrote, “The First Amendment does not have a bedtime of 10:00 p.m.” and concluded that the state failed to prove the restrictions were “narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.” The injunction halts the Overnight Expression Ban, the End-of-Term Invited Speaker Ban, the End-of-Term Amplified Sound Ban, and the End-of-Term Drum Ban, all of which applied broadly across University of Texas campuses.
The decision marks a significant rebuke of the “Campus Protection Act,” which lawmakers passed earlier this year following widespread campus protests tied to the Israel-Gaza conflict. Texas Policy Research recommended that lawmakers vote NO on SB 2972. The bill’s author, State Sen. Brandon Creighton (R–Conroe), now Chancellor of the Texas Tech University System, defended the law as a tool to protect both “free expression and campus integrity.” But in court, the measure failed to meet constitutional scrutiny.
What SB 2972 Does
SB 2972 amends Section 51.9315 of the Texas Education Code, redefining how Texas universities regulate speech on campus. The legislation restricts expressive rights to students and employees, eliminating the general public’s access to outdoor spaces as open forums. While claiming to uphold free speech, it imposed sweeping limitations on time, place, and manner that go far beyond prior law.
Among its most controversial provisions:
- A ban on expressive activities between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m., regardless of location or context.
- Prohibitions on amplified sound, invited speakers, or percussive instruments during the final two weeks of academic terms.
- Rules requiring participants in demonstrations to show identification to university officials or law enforcement upon request.
- Restrictions on encampments, symbolic flag displays, and disguises intended to conceal identity.
While supporters framed SB 2972 as necessary to prevent disruption, its practical effect was to empower administrators to silence dissenting voices. Texas Policy Research’s bill analysis found that the legislation “weakens constitutional standards of viewpoint neutrality and narrow tailoring,” eroding liberty protections in the process.
The Court’s Findings: A Content-Based, Overbroad Law
Judge Ezra’s 52-page injunction order leaves little doubt about the constitutional infirmities of SB 2972. He ruled that the law was content-based both on its face and in purpose, noting its origins in response to specific political protests and statements by state leaders who labeled demonstrations as “antisemitic.” This, the court said, reflected disagreement with the message conveyed, making the statute subject to strict scrutiny.
The court also held that the law’s blanket ban on expressive activities after dark was both overinclusive and underinclusive. While commercial activity could continue overnight, expressive activity could not, even if peaceful or non-disruptive. Ezra wrote that the state had failed to demonstrate any evidence that banning all expression between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. was necessary to maintain campus order.
Equally problematic were the “end-of-term” restrictions, which applied for up to 98 days per academic year at some campuses. The court noted that these provisions barred nearly all forms of expression during crucial weeks when political, religious, and artistic events often occur. “If the goal is to prevent disruption,” Ezra observed, “then such conduct is already covered by city ordinances and existing university rules.”
The injunction applies system-wide to all University of Texas institutions, prohibiting enforcement of the banned provisions while the lawsuit proceeds.
FIRE’s Role and Broader Implications
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) filed the lawsuit on behalf of multiple student groups, including FOCUS, The Retrograde (UT-Dallas’s independent newspaper), Young Americans for Liberty, the Texas Society of Unconventional Drummers, and Strings Attached. FIRE attorneys argued that the law effectively banned everyday activities, from prayer meetings to music performances, and could be used to punish any expression administrators disliked.
Following the ruling, FIRE attorney JT Morris called it “a victory for all who express themselves on college campuses across Texas.” Senior attorney Adam Steinbaugh added, “Texas’ law is so overbroad that any student chatting in the dorms past 10 p.m. would have been in violation.”
The case underscores a broader trend of state governments seeking greater control over higher education. Over the past two years, Texas has enacted multiple laws regulating campus expression, including bans on DEI programs and restrictions on certain events. Courts have already blocked several of these measures on constitutional grounds.
Texas Campuses Lag Nationally in Free Speech Rankings
The injunction arrives as new data shows Texas universities already struggling with free expression. FIRE’s 2026 College Free Speech Rankings found that no Texas university earned a passing grade, with institutions like UT-Austin (167th), Texas A&M (47th), and UT-Dallas (240th) performing far below national leaders.
Texas Policy Research previously analyzed these findings in detail, noting that the state’s legislative focus on speech regulation has not translated into greater campus openness. Despite the 2019 passage of Senate Bill 18, which once made outdoor spaces “traditional public forums,” more recent measures like SB 2972 have reversed that progress.
Evaluating SB 2972 Through the Liberty Principles
Individual Liberty
SB 2972’s restrictions represent a direct infringement on individual freedom of expression. By barring peaceful activity after dark and during academic finals, it effectively criminalizes constitutionally protected speech. Judge Ezra’s injunction affirms what Texas Policy Research warned during the session: that the bill’s enforcement would “suppress peaceful protest and symbolic expression beyond what is necessary to maintain campus order.”
Personal Responsibility
The law’s requirement for students and employees to present identification to law enforcement during expressive activity blurs the line between accountability and surveillance. True responsibility arises from individual self-governance, not compelled compliance under threat of punishment. The injunction restores the presumption that free citizens should not have to prove their right to speak.
Free Enterprise
Universities are marketplaces of ideas. When the government dictates which speech is permissible, it disrupts the same environment of debate and discovery that fuels innovation. Restrictions on speakers, student journalism, and artistic performance stifle the intellectual exchange that underpins economic and civic vitality. A chilled campus culture yields a colder civic climate.
Private Property Rights
Though limited to public campuses, the law undermines the concept of publicly accessible property. Taxpayers who fund these institutions have a legitimate claim to use campus spaces for expression. Turning those areas into controlled zones violates the spirit of public ownership and transparency that should guide state institutions.
Limited Government
At its core, SB 2972 expands, not limits, government power. It replaces long-standing constitutional standards of viewpoint neutrality and narrow tailoring with vague administrative discretion. As the court emphasized, “The statute requires universities to adopt policies that violate those very constitutional protections.” The preliminary injunction reasserts that no government, state, or university can override the Constitution under the guise of order.
The Path Forward for Texas Higher Education
The injunction against SB 2972 is more than a temporary pause; it’s a constitutional checkpoint. Texas universities already lag behind their peers in fostering a culture of open inquiry. Layering additional restrictions only worsens the climate of fear and conformity.
As the state’s Select Committees on Civil Discourse and Freedom of Speech begin examining the issue in 2026, lawmakers face a pivotal choice: double down on bureaucratic regulation or restore the principles that made Texas a leader in higher education and liberty alike.
The court’s ruling offers a blueprint: protect speech, maintain order through narrow rules, and trust Texans to exercise their freedoms responsibly.
Conclusion: A Victory for Liberty and a Warning to Lawmakers
Judge Ezra’s injunction delivers a decisive message: Texas cannot legislate the First Amendment out of existence after dark. The court’s opinion, like Texas Policy Research’s earlier assessment, concludes that SB 2972 is overbroad, content-based, and inconsistent with limited government.
If the Legislature wishes to preserve both campus safety and constitutional fidelity, it must craft laws that restrain disruption without restraining rights. The First Amendment does not sleep, and neither should the vigilance required to defend it.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
