Sponsor
Gregory Francis Murphy
Representative · R-NC
Representative · R-NC
Official title: To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to ensure that public institutions of higher education eschew policies that improperly constrain the expressive rights of students, and to ensure that private institutions of higher education are transparent about, and responsible for, their chosen speech policies.
Introduced December 11, 2025 by Gregory Francis Murphy · Last progress December 11, 2025
The bill strengthens and enforces student free‑speech and assembly rights on public campuses and creates federal oversight and private remedies, but it raises risks to campus safety and inclusion for marginalized students, increases litigation and financial exposure for institutions, and creates potential confusion and uneven application across campuses.
Students and campus visitors gain clearer and broader First Amendment protections on public campuses for speech, assembly, protest, literature distribution, and religious expression, reducing the risk of disciplinary action for protected expression.
Students have a private enforcement remedy — the ability to sue for damages (minimum $500 plus $50/day after notice) if institutions violate expressive-rights protections — giving individuals a direct path to accountability.
A federal complaint and oversight process (with review timelines and publicly posted decisions) gives students and the public a transparent channel to challenge campus speech policies and creates an enforcement mechanism beyond campus administration.
Marginalized and targeted students (e.g., racial or ethnic minorities) may face reduced ability of universities to track and address hostile or discriminatory conduct if bias-reporting and related administrative tools are restricted, undermining safety and inclusion.
Colleges and their students risk losing federal student-aid eligibility if institutions are found noncompliant, which could disrupt institutional finances and students' access to federal aid.
Universities face greater litigation risk, potential damages, DOJ enforcement, and administrative costs to revise policies — expenses that can divert resources away from academics, student services, and potentially raise costs for taxpayers.
Based on analysis of 3 sections of legislative text.
Requires HEA-funded colleges to protect broad student expressive activity, limits speech zones and restrictive codes, and creates enforcement including private lawsuits and AG action.
Requires colleges and universities that receive federal higher education funds to broadly protect student expressive activity — including religious expression, protest, distribution of literature, and spontaneous assembly — in generally accessible campus areas. It limits the use of restrictive "free speech zones," narrowly constrains time/place/manner rules, calls out bias-reporting systems as potentially abusive, and creates enforcement tools including a private right of action and authority for the Attorney General to enforce the new protections. Applies to most public institutions (new section 494A) and creates parallel protections for many private institutions (new section 494B referenced); exempts service academies and certain training institutions; excludes non‑generally‑accessible areas; and requires institutions to give specified assurances to keep HEA program eligibility. The measure emphasizes content- and viewpoint-neutral criteria for any restrictions and requires narrowly tailored, compelling-interest justifications for time/place/manner rules.