Brian Soucek
LightNews LightNews
banner
brsoucek.bsky.social
Brian Soucek
@brsoucek.bsky.social
760 followers 350 following 86 posts
Professor at UC Davis Law School, where I teach con law & civil procedure and write about academic freedom & aesthetics. Author of The Opinionated University (U Chicago Press 2025) and Permitting Art (Cabinet).

https://law.ucdavis.edu/people/brian-soucek
Posts Replies Media Videos
brsoucek.bsky.social
Vicki Schultz and I wrote this in 2021. For some reason I've been thinking about it lately.
www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...
Opinion | How Cuomo is exploiting public confusion over the definition of sexual harassment
As a legal matter, the sexualized definition of harassment most commonly provided and publicized is over 20 years out of date.
www.nbcnews.com
November 2, 2025 at 3:58 PM
brsoucek.bsky.social
Another strong post from UC's Academic Senate, this time on the personally identifiable information of students, staff, and faculty that UC is (or might be) turning over to the Trump administration.
STATEMENT FROM THE UC ACADEMIC COUNCIL REGARDING DISCLOSURES OF PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION (PII) With unanimous resolve, the Academic Council addresses University of California President Milliken concerning the disclosure of personally identifiable information (PII) of faculty, students, and staff to the federal government amid an ongoing investigation of UC Berkeley by the Office for Civil Rights within the U.S. Department of Education into alleged violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. President Milliken’s message to the UC community on October 3 describes the University’s actions as undertaken to comply with federal law, as written and interpreted, and refers to several months of anonymization efforts. The attendant FAQ further states that there have been prior federal investigations, demands for records, and PII disclosures by UC and many other institutions. Nevertheless, in this volatile climate—amid systematic and unprecedented federal actions designed to usurp control over U.S. higher education—universities must recognize that they can no longer rely on the ethos of collaboration and goodwill that has historically defined their relationships with the federal government. Consequently, we assert that the disclosure of PII can no longer be regarded as a standard procedural matter, irrespective of pre-existing agreements or interpretations of federal compliance requirements. These disclosures have already chilled academic speech and instilled fear in our community of punitive measures and targeted threats. Critically, named persons may not yet have had the opportunity to contest allegations, correct University records, or mitigate risks. These concerns are now amplified by press reports of expanded and unrestricted access to federal databases, raising the specter of misuse of sensitive information. While notifying affected individuals only after disclosure is preferable to silence, the post-facto timing has further eroded institutional t…
October 28, 2025 at 10:05 PM
brsoucek.bsky.social
Well, it’s really “we agree to follow Pam Bondi’s view of the law”
joefore.bsky.social Joe Fore @joefore.bsky.social · 19d
UVA Interim President Paul Mahoney announces that DOJ has agreed to drop its civil rights investigation against the University.

The “agreement” has no financial penalty and basically requires UVA to say “we agree to follow the law.”

(full agreement here federalinfo.virginia.edu/sites/federa...)
October 23, 2025 at 2:50 AM
brsoucek.bsky.social
UVA agrees to "apply Civil Rights Law internally" according to the July 2025 Bondi memo, but only "to the extent consistent with relevant judicial decisions." That last part could matter, since the Bondi memo goes so far beyond what "relevant judicial decisions" hold. /1
UVA alfirms its commitment to complying with federal civil rights law and agrees to apply Civil Rights Law internally according to the Department of Justice's "Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination" of July 29, 2025, os long as that Guidance remains ni force and to the extent consistent with relevant judicial decisions.
October 23, 2025 at 1:46 AM
brsoucek.bsky.social
What can it possibly mean to apply an “institutional neutrality” policy to the role of “Vice Chancellor Provost of Climate Science, POLICY, and ACTION”? What, is he supposed to alternate days, recycling on one and burning coal the next? It’s incoherent.
www.thedp.com/article/2025...
Penn community reflects on Michael Mann’s resignation, implications for institutional neutrality
Mann attributed the departure from his vice provost role to tension between his science policy advocacy work and Penn’s institutional neutrality policy. He remains a professor at Penn, and is the dire...
www.thedp.com
October 16, 2025 at 10:28 PM
Reposted by Brian Soucek
miriamposner.com
Did you know that the UC Regents refuse to reveal the letter UCLA received from the Trump admin? Faculty requested a copy under the Public Records Act, but Regents refused, citing unidentified pending litigation. Now a judge has sided with @uclafa.bsky.social, saying UCLA must show us the letter.
Judge rules UC must publicize Trump administration settlement demands - Daily Bruin
This post was updated Oct. 14 at 11:30 p.m. A judge ruled Tuesday that the UC Board of Regents must publicize the Trump administration’s proposed settlement demands to UCLA.
dailybruin.com
October 15, 2025 at 10:41 PM
brsoucek.bsky.social
By requiring institutional neutrality except on issues that impact a university's mission, the Trump Compact for Higher Ed would put the Department of Justice in charge of deciding what every university's mission should be.
rb.gy/7gjkp8
Trump’s ‘compact’ with universities holds a hidden danger
OPINION: By imposing institutional neutrality, the Trump administration is giving itself the power to determine our universities’ missions, UC Davis law professor Brian Soucek writes.
www.sfchronicle.com
October 15, 2025 at 2:20 PM
brsoucek.bsky.social
Leading universities are closing departments, freezing graduate admissions, and shutting down museum shows for being “political”, but yes @nytimes.com please tell us about how Ilya Shapiro was almost forced to give his talk on a Wednesday rather than a Tuesday at NYU.
www.nytimes.com/2025/10/13/o...
Opinion | I Resigned as Manhattan’s U.S. Attorney. Law Schools Are Missing the Point of My Story.
www.nytimes.com
October 13, 2025 at 2:02 PM
Reposted by Brian Soucek
histoftech.bsky.social
The Virginia Senate just told UVA it’s not getting state funding if it accepts the compact since UVA exists to serve Virginia, its residents, & their interests—not be a tool of the federal govt. Scoop from our student newspaper, who’ve been doing vital reporting www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2025...
October 10, 2025 at 9:45 PM
brsoucek.bsky.social
Strong statement today from UC's Academic Senate:
October 3, 2025 at 9:58 PM
Reposted by Brian Soucek
uchicagopress.bsky.social
An important piece from Brian Soucek (@brsoucek.bsky.social), author of THE OPINIONATED UNIVERSITY, coming in January 2026.

www.salon.com/2025/10/02/w...
When military recruiters visit, colleges must support trans students
The trans ban violates the missions of universities — and their silence is dishonorable
www.salon.com
October 3, 2025 at 5:07 PM
brsoucek.bsky.social
Unless I'm missing something, three people were fired @tamu.bsky.social because a class syllabus expanded on this effusive description in the @tamu.bsky.social course catalog: "Literature for Children. Representative writers, genres, texts and movements." (See www.coursicle.com/tamu/courses...).
ENGL 360 - Literature for Children at Texas A&M University | Coursicle TAMU
ENGL 360 at Texas A&M University (TAMU) in College Station, Texas. Literature for Children. Credit 0 or 3. Representative writers, genres, texts and movements. Prerequisite: Junior or senior classification.
www.coursicle.com
September 10, 2025 at 5:50 AM
brsoucek.bsky.social
Proud to see @ucdavislaw.bsky.social making its values clear, even as the federal Solomon Amendment pressures us to allow military recruiters to violate our nondiscrimination policies. These kinds of statements were common (in fact, required by AALS) during Don't Ask Don't Tell. What's changed?
MILITARY RECRUITMENT AT UC DAVIS SCHOOL OF LAW In accord with the University of California’s anti-discrimination policy and regulations of the Associate of American Law Schools (AALS), the University of California, Davis School of Law has a Non-Discrimination Policy & Statement of Equal Opportunity providing that: The UC Davis School of Law Career Services Office expects employers recruiting at King Hall to share our belief that the diversity of our students' backgrounds, experience and interests will enrich the legal profession. UC Davis School of Law does not make its career services facilities or services available to employers who discriminate in the selection of employees on the basis of ... sex, gender, gender expression, [or] gender identity. On January 27, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing the Departments of Defense and of Homeland Security to revise their accession and retention standards to presumptively ban service by people who are transgender, finding that transgender status is “not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member” and with “a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle.” A federal law, the Solomon Amendment, 10 U.S.C. § 983, denies most federal funding to a university that provides less access to military recruiters than to other employers. For that reason, longstanding practice at King Hall, as at other law schools, has been to grant access to miliary recruiters even when they fail to comply with our policies. As the U.S. Supreme Court wrote when it upheld the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment, “Nothing about recruiting suggests that law schools agree with any speech by recruiters, and nothing in the Solomon Amendment restricts what the law schools may say about the military’s policies.” Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 65 (2006). To make our position clear, we will prominently post our non-discrimination…
September 5, 2025 at 4:31 PM
Reposted by Brian Soucek
jameeljaffer.bsky.social
Listen guys, if you're going to highlight this provision, you might also want to acknowledge the other provisions that require Columbia to restrict teaching, scholarship, and campus protest, and that limit the university's autonomy re admissions and hiring. www.nytimes.com/2025/08/19/u...
August 20, 2025 at 1:02 PM
brsoucek.bsky.social
This:
jamellebouie.net jamelle @jamellebouie.net · Jun 27
the president does not actually have the power to fire a university president or a museum director, but if elites simply roll over under pressure, then effectively he does
June 27, 2025 at 6:00 PM
Reposted by Brian Soucek
katiephang.bsky.social
BREAKING:

CASA (plaintiff in Maryland birthright citizenship case) has now filed an amended complaint seeking class certification for similarly situated individuals impacted by Trump’s EO.

www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-cont...
www.law.georgetown.edu
June 27, 2025 at 5:31 PM
Reposted by Brian Soucek
jtlg.bsky.social
Orders with no accompanying explanation have no precedential force beyond the specific facts they apply to. The district court should grant this motion, and the lower courts should keep on granting relief until the Supreme Court articulates a rule of decision to the contrary.
joshuajfriedman.com Joshua J. Friedman @joshuajfriedman.com · Jun 24
NEW: Lawyers for the 8 men being deported to South Sudan ask the district court to enforce its order granting these men additional due process, arguing that the Supreme Court's unreasoned order doesn't foreclose a remedy for a previous violation. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
D. The Supreme Court's Stay of the Preliminary Injunction On May 27, 2025, Defendants sought a stay of the preliminary injunction from the U.S. Supreme Court, and, on June 23, 2025, the Court granted the stay. DHS v. D.V.D., No. 24A1153 (S. Ct. Jun. 23, 2025). However, the Supreme Court did not rule on or in any way address the government's jurisdictional arguments or the merits of Plaintiffs' claims, including whether the eight Plaintiffs who now file this motion were entitled to notice and an opportunity to seek protection before removal to a third country. Id. III. ARGUMENT The Court Should Enforce the Previously Ordered Remedy This Court retains the authority to enforce compliance with its previously ordered remedy. DHS was required to immediately comply with this Court's order when it was in effect, for it is a "basic proposition that all orders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly." Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 458 (1975); see also, e.g., Pasadena City Bd. of Ed.
June 24, 2025 at 12:58 AM
Reposted by Brian Soucek
kyledcheney.bsky.social
BREAKING: A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore millions of dollars in canceled grants to University of California researchers, calling the terminations flagrantly illegal and unconstitutional. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
June 24, 2025 at 1:07 AM
brsoucek.bsky.social
Absolutely this. Nicholas Confessore clearly wasn't going to let the actual decision get in the way of his thesis. To be clear: the Skrmetti Court is 3-3-3 on the question of "extending new constitutional protections to trans people."
chrisgeidner.bsky.social Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · Jun 19
If an 11,000-word story has a major, factual error in the fifth graf, it probably should be seen for the biased, hit-piece it is.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court delivered a new, crushing blow, upholding Tennessee's ban in a 6-to-3 decision. In allowing Tennessee to outlaw blockers and hormones, the court not only shielded similar laws on the books in some two dozen states. It effectively closed the door on extending new constitutional protections to trans people. Some advocates fear that Skrmetti could open the door to banning medical transition for adults and perhaps other health care that some conservatives oppose, like birth control or in vitro fertilization - even vaccines. The fate of a once-obscure medical treatment could have profound consequences for American law.
June 19, 2025 at 9:07 PM
brsoucek.bsky.social
Think the government shouldn't be defining what's art? Think the arts deserve government funding? Uh oh...you can't think both. My article with the amazing @jenniferlena.bsky.social is finally out, and it tells a 100-year history of tax law shaping what we see as art versus other forms of amusement.
Tax Law as Muse Brian Soucek & Jennifer C. Lena Admission charges at Chicago’s small music venues are gen- erally exempt from tax. But a few years ago, officials came after clubs that hosted rock, hip-hop, country, and DJ performances, claiming that those kinds of music weren’t “commonly regarded as part of the fine arts.” Controversy exploded, critics derided the idea of turning tax collectors into “culture police,” and the law was quickly changed to avoid accusations of unconstitutionality. Plaintiffs across the country have similarly alleged that selective tax exemptions for certain arts but not others amount to unconstitutional content discrimination. They claim that the government has no business judging what is art or deciding what types of art to favor. But if this is so, then all levels of government in the United States have been acting unconstitu- tionally for an awfully long time. This Article recovers a largely forgotten history of federal tax- ation of the arts, dating back to World War I. Federal admissions and cabaret taxes grew large enough by the Second World War to change the course of music, hastening the decline of big band jazz, the death of tap, and the growth of bebop. Fights for exemptions embroiled Congress in debates over the value of various arts and their distinction from “mere” amusements like burlesque, band concerts, and the circus. And as the legislative history reveals, the lines that got drawn reflect the race, gender, and class dispar- ities of the voices Congress heard during the nearly five decades the federal admissions tax remained in effect. Unearthing the historical context behind discriminatory tax exemptions like those in Chicago helps shed significant light on a notoriously difficult First Amendment problem: how to distinguish selective support of the arts from censorship. Perhaps surprisingly, the history bolsters the constitutionality of tax schemes like Chicago’s. But at the same time, the his- tory shows that government meddling in the arts—not least through the tax code—runs far deeper than even its critics realize. Over the last century, tax law in the United States has not just discriminated among the arts; it has helped determine what gets counted among the arts in the first place. And as Chicago’s example proves, tax law continues to do this today, helping shape the perceived status and nature of performances by everyone from DJs to drag queens, and symphonies to strippers. Desirable as government subsidies for the arts might be, to see their effects is to realize the need for broader popular involvement in deciding who and what should receive them.
June 12, 2025 at 9:11 PM
Reposted by Brian Soucek
ucdavislaw.bsky.social
Professor @brsoucek.bsky.social‬ recently participated in the 2025 Second Circuit Judicial Conference at the historic Sagamore Resort in Bolton Landing, N.Y. He spoke as part of the plenary session “Art & Legal Efforts to Silence, Tame and Cage It.” Read more at the link: bit.ly/4mKGczc

#UCDavisLaw
June 11, 2025 at 11:19 PM
brsoucek.bsky.social
Hey institutional neutrality folks: now that Trump’s military trans ban is back in effect, are you going to say anything about the fact that you’re violating your own nondiscrimination policies when you host military recruiters? Is that an attack on your mission?
May 6, 2025 at 6:27 PM
Reposted by Brian Soucek
fishkin.bsky.social
I was waiting for someone to post this. Federal courts ordered the Biden administration to engage in negotiations with another country. This is complex territory for sure.

But how much negotiation is really required to say "you know that guy we're paying you to hold? Put him on our plane tomorrow"?
mjsdc.bsky.social Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · Apr 17
As DOJ argues that federal courts have no authority to order "any particular acts of diplomacy," I want to remind everyone that SCOTUS let Matthew Kacsmaryk seize control of Biden's border policy for 10 months and micromanage diplomatic negotiations with Mexican officials. slate.com/news-and-pol...
April 17, 2025 at 3:27 PM
brsoucek.bsky.social
Perfect timing for the new edition of the @aaup.bsky.social #Redbook!
April 16, 2025 at 8:50 PM
Reposted by Brian Soucek
charlottegarden.bsky.social
Interestingly, this letter is signed by Robert Hur; Hur was the MD USA during Trump I, and then the person assigned to investigate Biden's post-VP handling of documents. He wrote that Biden would present himself to a jury “as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”
nikobowie.bsky.social Niko Bowie @nikobowie.bsky.social · Apr 14
BREAKING: On Friday, the federal government issued new demands of Harvard University. The university's lawyers just responded: back off.
April 14, 2025 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Josh Gruenbaum Commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service General Services Administration Sean R. Keveney Acting General Counsel U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Thomas E. Wheeler Acting General Counsel U.S. Department of Education Dear Messrs. Gruenbaum, Keveney, and Wheeler: We represent Harvard University. We are writing in response to your letter dated April 11, 2025, addressed to Dr. Alan Garber, Harvard’s President, and Penny Pritzker, Senior Fellow of the Harvard Corporation. Harvard is committed to fighting antisemitism and other forms of bigotry in its community. Antisemitism and discrimination of any kind not only are abhorrent and antithetical to Harvard’s values but also threaten its academic mission. To that end, Harvard has made, and will continue to make, lasting and robust structural, policy, and programmatic changes to ensure that the university is a welcoming and supportive learning environment for all students and continues to abide in all respects with federal law across its academic programs and operations, while fostering open inquiry in a pluralistic community free from intimidation and open to challenging orthodoxies, whatever their source. Over the past 15 months, Harvard has undertaken substantial policy and programmatic measures. It has made changes to its campus use policies; adopted new accountability procedures; imposed meaningful discipline for those who violate university policies; enhanced programs designed to address bias and promote ideological diversity and civil discourse; hired staff to support these programs and support students; changed partnerships; dedicated resources to combat hate and bias; and enhanced safety and security measures. As a result, Harvard is in a very different place today from where it was a year ago. These efforts, and additional measures the university will be taking against antisemitism, not only are the right thing to do but also are critical to strength… recognized by the Supreme Court. The government’s terms also circumvent Harvard’s statutory rights by requiring unsupported and disruptive remedies for alleged harms that the government has not proven through mandatory processes established by Congress and required by law. No less objectionable is the condition, first made explicit in the letter of March 31, 2025, that Harvard accede to these terms or risk the loss of billions of dollars in federal funding critical to vital research and innovation that has saved and improved lives and allowed Harvard to play a central role in making our country’s scientific, medical, and other research communities the standard-bearers for the world. These demands extend not only to Harvard but to separately incorporated and independently operated medical and research hospitals engaging in life-saving work on behalf of their patients. The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government. Accordingly, Harvard will not accept the government’s terms as an agreement in principle. Harvard remains open to dialogue about what the university has done, and is planning to do, to improve the experience of every member of its community. But Harvard is not prepared to agree to demands that go beyond the lawful authority of this or any administration. William A. Burck Robert K. Hur Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 1300 I Street NW Suite 900 Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 King & Spalding LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006
April 14, 2025 at 5:30 PM