Committee considers bill requiring public colleges to prohibit nonimmigrant visa holders from supporting terrorism; civil-rights groups and students oppose

Senate Bill 2233 would require public institutions of higher education in Texas to adopt policies prohibiting students or employees on nonimmigrant visas from engaging in or publicly supporting terrorist activities or organizations, and to establish investigation and accountability procedures. The sponsor described sanctions ranging from a one-year suspension for a first violation to expulsion or termination for a second violation, and authorized the Texas attorney general to sue institutions that fail to comply and seek fines of up to 1% of an institution’s annual budget per instance of noncompliance.

Sponsor Senator Hinojosa told the committee the measure is intended to prevent support for terrorist activities on campus and that definitions of ‘terroristic activity’ and ‘terrorist organization’ are tied to federal law. “I believe that is properly defined already,” he said in response to a question referencing 8 U.S.C. § 1182 as a source for definitions.

Multiple witnesses testified in opposition. Daniel Woodward, a policy attorney with the Texas Civil Rights Project, argued the bill is unconstitutional under the First Amendment and cited Brandenburg v. Ohio in support of his position: “Under Brandenburg, the court held that speech can only be prohibited if it is both directed at inciting or producing lawless action, imminent lawless action, and it is likely to incite or produce such action,” Woodward said, adding that publicly supporting terrorist activity can encompass speech far short of that standard.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas also opposed SB 2233, warning the bill’s vague language could chill legitimate political expression and pressure universities to over-enforce rules out of concern over AG enforcement. Witnesses from campus communities and multiple law students described personal and historical reasons to oppose the measure, saying it would create a two-tier free-speech system that targets international students and could lead to surveillance, reporting and deportation risks. Several witnesses specifically cited recent campus protests and said criminal acts already can be addressed by law enforcement, while this bill would expand institutional policing of speech.

Committee members asked about definitions in the bill, how institutions would notify students and the role of the attorney general. The sponsor said he would work with members to clarify language if needed; several senators urged caution about vagueness and the potential for viewpoint discrimination. Public testimony was extensive; after hearing public commenters the committee closed testimony and left SB 2233 pending.