Judge Restricts UC System's Antiharassment Policy

A federal judge has placed restrictions on the University of California system's antiharassment policy, ruling that certain provisions infringe upon students' free speech rights. U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick issued a preliminary injunction on September 21, 2026, halting the enforcement of specific clauses within the policy that he deemed overly broad. The lawsuit was brought by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a non-profit organization dedicated to defending free speech on college campuses, on behalf of UC Berkeley student Ethan Sussman and other UC students.

Judge Orrick's ruling specifically targets sections of the policy that prohibited "harassment" based on subjective perceptions of offense, rather than requiring conduct that is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive. The judge found that the policy's broad definition of harassment could chill constitutionally protected speech, as students might self-censor to avoid inadvertently violating the policy. This decision marks a significant victory for free speech advocates who have argued that many university antiharassment policies overstep their bounds and stifle open discourse. The University of California system, which comprises 10 campuses and serves over 280,000 students, had implemented the revised antiharassment policy in January 2026, aiming to create a safer and more inclusive environment for its students and staff. However, critics argued that the policy's expansive language could be used to penalize legitimate academic debate or personal expression.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) stated that the judge's order is crucial for safeguarding students' First Amendment rights within the UC system. According to FIRE, the policy's previous wording could have led to disciplinary actions against students for expressing unpopular opinions or engaging in robust academic discussions. The organization emphasized that while preventing genuine harassment is a necessary goal, policies must be narrowly tailored to avoid suppressing protected speech. The preliminary injunction means that the UC system cannot enforce the challenged provisions of the antiharassment policy while the lawsuit proceeds. This legal development could have broader implications for how public universities across the United States draft and implement their own antiharassment and conduct policies, potentially prompting reviews and revisions elsewhere to ensure compliance with free speech standards.

Judge Orrick's decision highlights the ongoing tension between maintaining safe campus environments and upholding the principles of free expression. The University of California system has not yet issued a formal statement regarding the preliminary injunction, but it is expected to respond to the ruling and potentially appeal the decision. The case underscores the critical role of the judiciary in balancing institutional safety concerns with fundamental constitutional rights, particularly in the context of higher education. The outcome of this lawsuit could set a precedent for future legal challenges to university policies that regulate student conduct and speech.