Genevieve Lakier
@genevievelakier.bsky.social
Law professor at UChicago Law. Thinks a lot about freedom of speech. Curious about this platform.
Law Profs teaching First Amendment: I have put together a FREE, recently updated, and easy to use casebook for use in free speech classes. If you are interested in using such a casebook, send me an email or DM and I would be happy to share!
November 7, 2025 at 3:31 PM
Law Profs teaching First Amendment: I have put together a FREE, recently updated, and easy to use casebook for use in free speech classes. If you are interested in using such a casebook, send me an email or DM and I would be happy to share!
I worry however that it underplays the partisan dynamics at work here. If all (public) schools in red states are forced to sign on to the Compact, and therefore get priority in federal funds, will schools in blue states feel free to resist? Do unis really have the capacity to simply...do nothing?
October 5, 2025 at 2:42 PM
I worry however that it underplays the partisan dynamics at work here. If all (public) schools in red states are forced to sign on to the Compact, and therefore get priority in federal funds, will schools in blue states feel free to resist? Do unis really have the capacity to simply...do nothing?
Finley is a pretty bad opinion I think, but the majority upholds the restrictions only after finding them to be both advisory and not likely to result in targeted viewpoint discrimination. Pretty different to the situation here!!
October 4, 2025 at 5:31 PM
Finley is a pretty bad opinion I think, but the majority upholds the restrictions only after finding them to be both advisory and not likely to result in targeted viewpoint discrimination. Pretty different to the situation here!!
But the “compact” the admin is asking universities to sign demands that they change how they regulate speech on campus—including by abolishing departments that “belittle… conservative ideas” ????? in order to continue to receive federal funds
October 2, 2025 at 10:52 AM
But the “compact” the admin is asking universities to sign demands that they change how they regulate speech on campus—including by abolishing departments that “belittle… conservative ideas” ????? in order to continue to receive federal funds
So much that is awful here. But the justification the president provides here--that the firing doesn't violate academic freedom bc the professor MISLED students & admin about the content of her class--is one that we are likely to see again.
September 10, 2025 at 2:11 PM
So much that is awful here. But the justification the president provides here--that the firing doesn't violate academic freedom bc the professor MISLED students & admin about the content of her class--is one that we are likely to see again.
For sure! And they/we were 100% correct to be nervous. Guess which recent SC opinion Judge Vyskocil relies heavily on, atmospherically at least, to shore up her terrible standing analysis?
June 23, 2025 at 10:36 PM
For sure! And they/we were 100% correct to be nervous. Guess which recent SC opinion Judge Vyskocil relies heavily on, atmospherically at least, to shore up her terrible standing analysis?
I am sympathetic to the difficult situation Harvard finds itself in. But I do not understand how any deal with the admin, other than the most empty one, could NOT compromise its free speech & institutional values. Surely any deal would signal that extortion works. www.nytimes.com/2025/06/20/u...
June 21, 2025 at 3:09 PM
I am sympathetic to the difficult situation Harvard finds itself in. But I do not understand how any deal with the admin, other than the most empty one, could NOT compromise its free speech & institutional values. Surely any deal would signal that extortion works. www.nytimes.com/2025/06/20/u...
In a really important passage, the judge rejects the relevance of the Second Red Scare precedents that the govt is relying upon, and affirms the significance of the 1A interests at stake here. The opinion makes clear how egregious the govt's actions have been.
April 29, 2025 at 7:50 PM
In a really important passage, the judge rejects the relevance of the Second Red Scare precedents that the govt is relying upon, and affirms the significance of the 1A interests at stake here. The opinion makes clear how egregious the govt's actions have been.
As I was saying... the claim of carte blanche power over privileges is pervasive
April 15, 2025 at 3:11 PM
As I was saying... the claim of carte blanche power over privileges is pervasive
The same rhetoric gets wielded to explain why the admin can terrorize and deport student activists. As Sec Rubio put it, visiting America is a “privilege” not a “right”
April 15, 2025 at 1:38 PM
The same rhetoric gets wielded to explain why the admin can terrorize and deport student activists. As Sec Rubio put it, visiting America is a “privilege” not a “right”
This is a complaint the admin and its supporters have made again and again: all these spoiled universities act as if they are entitled to federal funds, and need to be smacked on the nose to teach them better. Chris Rufo said the same thing on the Daily about Princeton.
April 15, 2025 at 1:38 PM
This is a complaint the admin and its supporters have made again and again: all these spoiled universities act as if they are entitled to federal funds, and need to be smacked on the nose to teach them better. Chris Rufo said the same thing on the Daily about Princeton.
The statmt the admin put out last night in response to Harvard’s refusal to give in to its demands is interesting for its focus on Harvard’s “entitlement” mindset🧵
April 15, 2025 at 1:37 PM
The statmt the admin put out last night in response to Harvard’s refusal to give in to its demands is interesting for its focus on Harvard’s “entitlement” mindset🧵
Yet NW told the NYT today that it would comply with the request unless a court orders it not to. Which a court may in fact do! The request has no legitimate oversight purpose. It is clearly an attempt to do what the 1A forbids: dictate what NW’s legal clinics do. www.nytimes.com/2025/04/09/n...
April 10, 2025 at 2:15 PM
Yet NW told the NYT today that it would comply with the request unless a court orders it not to. Which a court may in fact do! The request has no legitimate oversight purpose. It is clearly an attempt to do what the 1A forbids: dictate what NW’s legal clinics do. www.nytimes.com/2025/04/09/n...
Northwestern believes in the freedom to challenge orthodoxy. Will it fight to defend this freedom?
April 8, 2025 at 11:50 PM
Northwestern believes in the freedom to challenge orthodoxy. Will it fight to defend this freedom?
And of course both universities claim to care a great deal about free speech and academic freedom
April 8, 2025 at 11:48 PM
And of course both universities claim to care a great deal about free speech and academic freedom
Of course if *Harvard* sued to defend the free speech of itself and its faculty students and staff, standing would be no prob. And Harvard has told us that it is deeply committed to free speech so surely that is *just* what it will do
April 4, 2025 at 1:40 PM
Of course if *Harvard* sued to defend the free speech of itself and its faculty students and staff, standing would be no prob. And Harvard has told us that it is deeply committed to free speech so surely that is *just* what it will do
The argument the letter makes to justify what it is doing is that the receipt of federal funds is a privilege not a right and can be rescinded for any reason the govt likes. But that hasn’t been the law for…. seventy years now.
April 4, 2025 at 1:14 PM
The argument the letter makes to justify what it is doing is that the receipt of federal funds is a privilege not a right and can be rescinded for any reason the govt likes. But that hasn’t been the law for…. seventy years now.
Though this positive vision really begs the important Q that we all need to be thinking about: how can universities be funded in a way that doesn't imperil their core values, which are not and cannot be the same as those of the market?
March 27, 2025 at 6:06 PM
Though this positive vision really begs the important Q that we all need to be thinking about: how can universities be funded in a way that doesn't imperil their core values, which are not and cannot be the same as those of the market?
And Columbia’s President, when she announced the policy changes yesterday, was careful to suggest that these were all things the university would have done/was doing anyway
president.columbia.edu/news/sharing...
president.columbia.edu/news/sharing...
March 22, 2025 at 1:12 PM
And Columbia’s President, when she announced the policy changes yesterday, was careful to suggest that these were all things the university would have done/was doing anyway
president.columbia.edu/news/sharing...
president.columbia.edu/news/sharing...
This is what Columbia says its values are universitypolicies.columbia.edu/content/rule...
March 21, 2025 at 8:50 PM
This is what Columbia says its values are universitypolicies.columbia.edu/content/rule...
News that Columbia is considering ceding to the Trump admin’s demands that it change how it regulate speech on campus and teaches students in order to continue to receive federal funds made me think of this passage from a speech that UChicago President William Rainey Harper gave in 1900
March 20, 2025 at 12:54 PM
News that Columbia is considering ceding to the Trump admin’s demands that it change how it regulate speech on campus and teaches students in order to continue to receive federal funds made me think of this passage from a speech that UChicago President William Rainey Harper gave in 1900
That's very helpful. What a way to run a railroad! And maybe something to think about changing...
March 19, 2025 at 7:05 PM
That's very helpful. What a way to run a railroad! And maybe something to think about changing...
Very useful letter, that makes clear how Trump admin is using public claims of "enforcing" Title VII, just as it has used public claims of "enforcing" Title VI, to intimidate private corps into compliance w/its ideological agenda --EVEN when this kind of jawboning is expressly prohibited by the law.
March 19, 2025 at 12:14 PM
Very useful letter, that makes clear how Trump admin is using public claims of "enforcing" Title VII, just as it has used public claims of "enforcing" Title VI, to intimidate private corps into compliance w/its ideological agenda --EVEN when this kind of jawboning is expressly prohibited by the law.
SCOTUS found this fact made the law was unconstitutional. “The bookseller’s self-censorship, [because] compelled by the State,” it held, violated the First Amendment.
March 15, 2025 at 12:45 PM
SCOTUS found this fact made the law was unconstitutional. “The bookseller’s self-censorship, [because] compelled by the State,” it held, violated the First Amendment.
And this policy looked ON ITS FACE entirely constitutional because, as Judge Harris explained, it applied only to unlawful DEI programs not *all* DEI programs. So where's the harm?
March 15, 2025 at 12:43 PM
And this policy looked ON ITS FACE entirely constitutional because, as Judge Harris explained, it applied only to unlawful DEI programs not *all* DEI programs. So where's the harm?