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
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
The real problem with UVA's agreement today is that it gives the US the "sole discretion" to decide questions like these. And I have a hunch that Pam Bondi is going to interpret the Bondi memo as consistent with "relevant judicial decisions." So UVA hasn't given itself much of an out here... /end
fI at any time after the Effective Date, the United States ni its sole discretion determines that UVA si making insufficient progress toward compliance with the Civil Rights I.aws, it wil so notify UVA and provide UVA with a period of 15 days ot make appropriate progress. If the United States determines ni its sole discretion after that time that UVA has not made adequate progress, the United States may terminate this Agreement and may pursue enforcement actions, monetary fines, or grant or funding terminations as appropriate, and may resume al Investigations held ni abeyance during the pendency of this Agreement.
October 23, 2025 at 1:46 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
Strong statement today from UC's Academic Senate:
October 3, 2025 at 9:58 PM
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
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
brsoucek.bsky.social
Perfect timing for the new edition of the @aaup.bsky.social #Redbook!
April 16, 2025 at 8:50 PM
brsoucek.bsky.social
Bay Area folks: come join me tomorrow night @kqednews.kqed.org ’s Night of Ideas at the SF Public Library, where I’ll be debating institutional neutrality with @stanfordlaw.bsky.social’s Diego Zambrano. 9pm, and it’s free!
@ucdavislaw.bsky.social @ucdavis.bsky.social
April 4, 2025 at 3:04 PM
brsoucek.bsky.social
We've got a cover! My editor describes it as "juxtaposing the staid picture universities would like to present of themselves with the opinions they explicitly or implicitly express. It’s a bold cover for a bold book!"
@ucdavislaw.bsky.social @uchicagopress.bsky.social
April 1, 2025 at 4:45 PM
brsoucek.bsky.social
Universities are at risk of losing their federal funding in 10 days, so now would be a great time to see the Dept of Education's secret legal citation at missing note 10, which apparently explains how some DEI programs violate Title VI through the things they teach.
February 18, 2025 at 11:50 PM
brsoucek.bsky.social
Footnote 10 in the Department of Education's outrageous Dear Colleague letter is mysteriously missing. Anyone have any thoughts on what it might say?
www.ed.gov/media/docume...
February 17, 2025 at 4:32 PM
brsoucek.bsky.social
What AAUP policy or practice does the @aaup.bsky.social’s new statement overturn? The AAUP has never had a policy favoring institutional neutrality. Are there any other examples, other than the quite recent 2006 boycott policy, of prior opinions overturned by Committee A?
February 13, 2025 at 8:44 PM
brsoucek.bsky.social
Hi institutional neutrality folks! Just wondering: will your school say something about this, given that the Solomon Amendment requires you to host military recruiters who now blatantly violate your school’s non-discrimination policies?
January 28, 2025 at 6:22 AM
brsoucek.bsky.social
Here we go. Want to take bets on which universities will get picked?
January 22, 2025 at 7:12 PM
brsoucek.bsky.social
This, from Dept of Ed’s Office of Civil Rights settlement with @uofcalifornia.bsky.social, is just hand waving. No one in these debates, not the feds & not advocates like @thefireorg.bsky.social, has taken seriously the problem of dealing with protected speech that cumulatively makes campus hostile.
December 21, 2024 at 2:44 PM
brsoucek.bsky.social
Good luck with this!
www.sfchronicle.com/entertainmen...
December 4, 2024 at 1:54 PM
brsoucek.bsky.social
Len is characteristically informative and nuanced here but one thing strikes me as deeply wrong.

Academic freedom is not so much about what academics can say—whether in class or in their research—as it is about who judges what they say.
/1
www.chronicle.com/newsletter/t...
November 26, 2024 at 5:31 PM
brsoucek.bsky.social
I won’t give any Wicked spoilers, but I will say that all the gays at our screening on Monday started applauding when Nicole Kidman’s ad came on.
November 20, 2024 at 4:41 PM