Committee advances campus free-speech bill, sponsors cite Supreme Court precedent

The House Committee on Education on Friday voted to report House Bill 240 to the full House with a due-pass recommendation after testimony from the sponsor and allied legal advocates.

Representative Barbara Ehart introduced the bill as a measure to protect First Amendment rights on public college and university campuses by prohibiting restrictive "free-speech zones," allowing reasonable time, place and manner regulations that are content-neutral, and limiting security fees tied to the expected reaction of listeners.

Zach Pruett, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, told the committee the bill "is simply bringing Idaho statute in line with current First Amendment precedent," citing U.S. Supreme Court cases that shaped campus speech law. Pruett said the proposed statute would also require universities to publish policies and provide reporting and remedies, and that in states with similar laws lawsuits have been rare.

Supporters including Grace Howitt of the Idaho Family Policy Center urged the committee to adopt the bill to prevent universities from confining expression to remote corners of campus. Howitt cited prior litigation in which campus speech restrictions were successfully challenged and a polling figure included in written testimony showing broad public support for published free-speech policies.

Committee members questioned how the bill would apply to situations with competing demonstrations and asked how "materially and substantially disrupts" — a standard drawn from cases such as Tinker v. Des Moines — would be applied. Pruett described the reserved-space framework courts use to evaluate disruptions and said the bill would protect all viewpoints while permitting universities to adopt content-neutral time, place and manner rules.

Representative Harris moved to send the bill to the House floor with a due-pass recommendation. A roll call recorded nine ayes and five nays; the motion carried. The committee discussion included concerns about court caseloads if the statute creates new state-court causes of action and discussion about the bill's remedial cap and possible differences between remedies for commercial speech versus public-forum speech.

If enacted, supporters said the statute would require universities to publish free-speech policies, limit security fees tied to content or expected reaction, and clarify exclusions such as FERPA protections and employment harassment claims. Opponents raised technical questions about remedy caps and the bill's interaction with commercial activity on campus.