Ask a dozen people for a definition of what “woke” means, and you’ll likely get 12 different responses. A July 7, 2026, ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that Florida cannot prohibit students and professors from sharing views on wokeness (whatever it means) on the campuses of Florida’s public universities.
Citing First Amendment free speech violations, a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court struck down part of Florida’s “Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act” (Stop WOKE Act). The update to the state’s Individual Freedom Act (IFA) forbade Florida professors in state-funded public institutions of higher education from “training or instruction that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels” on a list of topics related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), such as racism, discrimination, and privilege.
The appellate court affirmed a district court’s 2022 preliminary injunction blocking the state from enforcing part of the Stop WOKE Act, labeling the part in question as a “breathtaking assertion of power” to impose an unconstitutional ban on “unpopular ideas from public discourse.”
It did not agree with the state’s rationale that any alleged infringement on academic freedom and freedom of speech was permitted under Garcetti v. Ceballos and Pickering v. Board of Education. The majority rejected Florida’s ‘salary‑for‑speech’ theory that government payment of professors’ salaries converts their classroom instruction into government speech. The decision sparked tensions among the divided panel members, with a bit of sniping evident in the opinion.
It marks the second time the IFA has been successfully challenged before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, with a provision of the Act banning employers from requiring workers to attend workplace training on certain subjects struck down in 2024. Pernell v. Lamb was originally filed in 2022 by professors, students, and a student organization at several of Florida’s public colleges and was supported by, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU of Florida) and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
And Don’t Tell Me What To Do, Don’t Tell Me What To Say
The Stop WOKE Act was signed into law in 2022 by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Part of the IFA, which amended the Florida Education Equality Act (FEEA), the Act imposed state-determined regulations on speech for teachers and professors at all levels of education in the state. According to Governor DeSantis, Florida had a compelling state interest in what educators could and couldn’t say because the state pays their salaries, effectively casting professors’ classroom instruction as government speech that the state could control.
The Act prohibited espousing views on eight specific concepts. These included discussions about race, sexism, guilt, and racial colorblindness, all topics likely to come up during diversity training and discussions. As with similar acts passed in other states, the Stop WOKE Act described itself as an “antidiscrimination law” and allowed sanctions, including financial penalties for schools and suspensions and even firings for educators found in violation. Professors were permitted to criticize taboo topics, but under the Act’s higher education provisions, they were not allowed to endorse or discuss them in a favorable light.
The state insisted that paying an educator’s salary meant it was within the boundaries of the First Amendment, which it attempted to support with Garcetti and the Pickering test. That stance failed to make the grade, as a lower court issued a preliminary injunction blocking part of the Act in the same year it became law.
Whoever Would Overthrow the Liberty of a Nation Must Begin by Subduing the Freeness of Speech
In her opinion, Judge Britt Grant, writing for the majority, described Florida’s ‘salary‑for‑speech’ theory as a ‘breathtaking assertion of power’ that would erase academic freedom by allowing the state to ban ‘unpopular ideas from public discourse’ in university classrooms. The majority held that public university teaching is protected academic expression, not government‑scripted speech the state may reshape at will.
Citing the strict scrutiny applied in the court’s decision in Bishop v. Aranov, she defined the state’s “salary-for-speech” rule as an egregious First Amendment violation, with the Act peppered with overbroad and vague terms for guidelines and enforcement, creating more confusion than clarity. Along with Senior Judge Charles Wilson, she was in strenuous disagreement with the panel’s other member, Judge Barbara Lagoa. Among other issues, the majority faults the dissent’s reliance on Bob Jones University v. United States, explaining that a case about denying tax exemptions to institutions with racially discriminatory policies does not support viewpoint‑based bans on classroom instruction.
While free speech advocates are likely to be happy with the outcome, the victory is somewhat limited in scope. Florida college-level educators regained the right to expound on formerly taboo subjects, but the ban still remains in place for K-12 teachers.
