Students deserve justice in free speech suit against Georgia college Petition asks high court to weigh in on outlier 11th Circuit view that makes govt officials unaccountable for unconstitutional actions

WASHINGTON – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing two former students at Georgia Gwinnett College asked the U.S. Supreme Court Friday to hear their case and vindicate their free speech rights. Two federal courts declined to address whether Gwinnett violated the students’ constitutional rights because the college modified its policies after the case was filed. Most federal courts will decide the constitutional question even if the government changes its policy because doing so prevents future misconduct and vindicates the essential freedoms that the Constitution protects.

Student Chike Uzuegbunam tried to share his Christian faith with other students on the Lawrenceville, Georgia, campus in 2016. College officials quickly stopped him because he had not reserved one of two tiny zones where free expression was allowed without a permit—zones that together made up only 0.0015% of campus. When Uzuegbunam reserved a zone and again tried to share his faith, officials again ordered him to stop because someone complained, which made his evangelization efforts “disorderly conduct” under a Gwinnett policy that applied to any expression that “disturbs the peace and/or comfort of person(s).” Student Joseph Bradford chose not to speak at all after seeing how officials treated Uzuegbunam. That’s when ADF attorneys representing the two filed the lawsuit, Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, to challenge the college’s speech zone and speech code policies.

Full news release, quotes, and related media resources available at the following link:

http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/10387

Case Name: Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski

The ADF Center for Academic Freedom is dedicated to ensuring freedom of speech and association for students and faculty so that everyone can freely participate in the marketplace of ideas without fear of government censorship.
# # # | Ref. 57426