The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has struck down the higher education provisions of Florida’s Stop W.O.K.E. Act, giving universities, public bodies and education-sector advisers a First Amendment ruling in Pernell v. Lamb.
The July 7, 2026 decision concerned the Individual Freedom Act, the 2022 law championed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and aimed at restricting how race and gender concepts could be taught in classrooms and workplace settings.
The appeal followed a Northern District of Florida injunction that had blocked enforcement of the higher education provisions against public universities while the constitutional challenge continued.
Judge Britt Grant wrote for the appellate majority, rejecting Florida’s argument that public university professors speak only for the state when teaching because they are paid by the government.
The court held that public university teaching is protected by the First Amendment, rejecting Florida’s argument that professors become government mouthpieces because they are paid by the state.
The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Florida, the Legal Defense Fund and Ballard Spahr on behalf of Florida educators and students, including LeRoy Pernell of Florida A&M University College of Law.
The judgment gives those groups a significant appellate win and places the Eleventh Circuit at the centre of national litigation over classroom speech, public employment and state control of institutional policy.
The ruling matters for solicitors and barristers because it sharpens the distinction between government speech, employee speech and academic expression. Universities, public agencies and private contractors advising them will now need to test whether training rules, curriculum policies and diversity-related restrictions are drafted as governance controls or as viewpoint-based limits on protected speech.
The legal risk is not confined to universities. Employers with public-sector contracts, education clients or multi-state compliance programmes may need to review whether guidance on race, gender, unconscious bias or harassment training can be defended without crossing into compelled or prohibited expression.
The Stop W.O.K.E. Act litigation is likely to be cited in constitutional, employment, education and civil rights disputes as other state laws move through the federal courts. The ruling is not from the Supreme Court, but it gives challengers, state attorneys general and advocacy groups appellate authority on classroom speech and state control.
Universities, employers and state-linked bodies should test speech policies against the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning before disputes over training, curriculum design or institutional messaging become constitutional test cases.