Judge Denies Request in SB129 Case
A U.S. District Judge, R. David Proctor, has turned down the request from plaintiffs in the case Simon v. Ivy for a provisional injunction against the enforcement of SB129, as of Wednesday.
He also supported Governor Kay Ivey’s motion to dismiss her from the lawsuit regarding her role as governor, and found that the two student plaintiffs lacked adequate standing to sue the University of Alabama Board of Directors.
SB129, which was approved by the state legislature and signed into law by Governor Ivey in 2024, restricts discussions around the “concept of division” at public universities in the state. It effectively bans diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives by prohibiting state agencies and public universities from sponsoring such programs.
The Alabama State Conference of Professors, University Students, and NAACP raised issues central to Simon v. Ivy back in January, arguing that both the First Amendment and Section 14 deem SB129 unconstitutional.
Reports from July revealed concerns from both professors and students at the University of Alabama regarding the implications of SB129 on academic freedom. One professor expressed significant worry to the Provost, stating that the law brings about feelings of “mistrust, anxiety, and fear.”
“SB129 will impose discriminatory restrictions on students’ First Amendment rights and their engagement in extracurricular activities,” the request for the injunction claimed. “Moreover, it fails to provide adequate notice regarding extracurricular activities and the distribution of state funds.”
While deliberating on the possible injunction, Judge Proctor indicated that the plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail under either the First or Fourteenth Amendment.
He noted that the courts are likely to find that balancing interests favors the board’s regulatory objectives over the professors’ free speech rights. “The Board is clearly focused on regulating classroom discussions linked to SB129,” he wrote.
Proctor highlighted the ongoing stance of management, mentioning that race-based preferential treatment has consistently been viewed as violating various laws.
Ultimately, he remarked that the evidence available is insufficient to connect SB129 to the concerns raised by the Black Student Coalition or the closure of designated safe spaces.
In a statement following the ruling, plaintiff Dana Patton, a political science professor at the University of Alabama, described the decision as another setback for the university system. She emphasized that the detrimental effects of the law on both students and professors remain unaddressed.
“SB129 has fostered a culture of fear, severely impacting our ability to offer thorough guidance in our fields,” she noted, asserting that the law undermines academic freedom and the commitment to delivering a true, inclusive education.
Antonio L. Ingram II, a senior adviser to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, affirmed that despite the ruling, the plaintiffs intend to persist in challenging SB129 to ensure that the Alabama campus community is representative of equal opportunities and inclusive experiences.
