Lawsuit IU

Case 1:24-cv-00898-JPH-MG Document 1 Filed 05/29/24 Page 1 of 29 PageID #: 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
SPEECH FIRST, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.
PAMELA WHITTEN, in her official capacity Case No. ____________
as President of Indiana University; LAMAR
R. HYLTON, in his official capacity as Vice VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Provost for Student Life for Indiana
University Bloomington; KATHY ADAMS
RIESTER, in her official capacity as Associate
Vice Provost for Student Life and Dean of
Students for Indiana University Bloomington;
CEDRIC HARRIS, in his official capacity as
Assistant Dean for Student Support and Bias
Education for Indiana University
Bloomington; JASON SPRATT, in his
official capacity as Associate Vice Chancellor
and Dean of Students for Indiana University
Indianapolis; HEATHER BRAKE, in her
official capacity as Associate Dean of
Students for Student Conduct and Advocacy
for Indiana University Indianapolis;
KATHERINE BETTS, in her official
capacity as Assistant Vice Chancellor of
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at Indiana
University Indianapolis; W. QUINN
BUCKNER; CINDY LUCCHESE; CATHY
LANGHAM; JEREMY A. MORRIS; J.
TIMOTHY MORRIS; KYLE S. SEIBERT;
DONNA B. SPEARS; ISAAC TORRES; and
VIVIAN WINSTON, all in their official
capacities as members of the Indiana
University Board of Trustees,
Defendants.
-1-
Plaintiff, Speech First, Inc., brings this action under the First and Fourteenth Amend-
ments to the United States Constitution, see 42 U.S.C. §1983, against Defendants and alleges
as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. “The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than
in the community of American [universities].” Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 180 (1972). In
theory, “[t]he college campus is peculiarly suited to serve as a marketplace of ideas and a forum
for the robust exchange of different viewpoints.” Solid Rock Found. v. Ohio State Univ., 478 F.
Supp. 96, 102 (S.D. Ohio 1979).
2. Yet Indiana University and its officials have enacted a far-reaching policy that
is designed solely to deter, discourage, and otherwise “prevent” students from expressing dis-
favored views about the political and social issues of the day.
3. The University’s bias incidents policy martials the authority of university admin-
istrators to police speech that someone believes is motivated by “bias.” The University for-
mally defines a “bias incident” as “any conduct, speech, or expression, motivated in whole or
in part by bias or prejudice meant to intimidate, demean, mock, degrade, marginalize, or
threaten individuals or groups based on that individual or group’s actual or perceived identi-
ties.” Bias incidents can occur on or off campus, including on social media, and the University
tracks and logs them all. Students accused of “bias incidents” can be referred for formal dis-
ciplinary proceedings. This policy poses a grave risk of chilling the open and unfettered dis-
course that should be central to higher education. Its bureaucratic processes—and the vague,
-2-
overbroad, and viewpoint-based definition of “bias incident” that triggers them—violate the
First and Fourteenth Amendments.
4. Speech First has members who attend Indiana and whose protected speech is
chilled by the bias incidents policy. The policy should be declared unconstitutional and en-
joined.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This action arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution and is brought via 42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 1988.
6. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343.
7. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391 because all Defendants reside here and
a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred here.
PARTIES
8. Plaintiff, Speech First, is a nationwide membership organization of students,
alumni, and other concerned citizens. Speech First is dedicated to preserving civil rights se-
cured by law, including the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. Speech
First seeks to protect the rights of students and others at colleges and universities through
litigation and other lawful means. E.g., Speech First, Inc. v. Khator, 2022 WL 1638773 (S.D. Tex.
May 19, 2022); Speech First, Inc. v. Cartwright, 32 F.4th 1110 (11th Cir. 2022); Speech First, Inc. v.
Schlissel, 939 F.3d 756 (6th Cir. 2019); Speech First, Inc. v. Fenves, 979 F.3d 319 (5th Cir. 2020).
9. Speech First has members who attend Indiana University, including Students
A, B, C, D, and E.
10. Indiana University is a public university organized and existing under the laws
of Indiana.
-3-
11. Defendant Pamela Whitten is President of Indiana University. Whitten is re-
sponsible for the enactment and enforcement of University policies, including the bias inci-
dents policy. Whitten is sued in her official capacity.
12. Defendant Lamar R. Hylton is Vice President for Student Life for Indiana Uni-
versity Bloomington. Hylton is responsible for oversight and enforcement of University poli-
cies at IU Bloomington, including the bias incidents policy. Hylton is sued in his official ca-
pacity.
13. Defendant Kathy Adams Riester is Associate Vice President for Student Life
and Dean of Students at Indiana University Bloomington. Adams Riester is responsible for
nearly all aspects of student life at IU Bloomington, including enforcement of the bias inci-
dents policy. Adams Riester is sued in her official capacity.
14. Defendant Cedric Harris is Associate Dean of Student Support and Bias Edu-
cation. Harris enforces the bias incidents policy at Indiana University Bloomington by, among
other things, tracking, logging, and responding to all bias incident complaints at IU Bloom-
ington. Harris is sued in his official capacity.
15. Defendant Jason Spratt is Associate Vice Chancellor and Dean of Students for
Indiana University Indianapolis. Spratt is responsible for nearly all aspects of student life at IU
Indianapolis, including enforcement of the bias incidents policy. Spratt is sued in his official
capacity.
16. Defendant Heather Brake is the Associate Dean of Students for Student Con-
duct and Advocacy for Indiana University Indianapolis. Brake is responsible for oversight and
-4-
enforcement of the University’s policies at IU Indianapolis, including the bias incidents policy.
Brake is sued in her official capacity.
17. Defendant Katherine Betts is Assistant Vice Chancellor of Diversity, Equity,
and Inclusion at Indiana University Indianapolis. Betts enforces the bias incidents policy at IU
Indianapolis by, among other things, tracking, logging, and responding to all bias incident
reports at the University. Betts is sued in her official capacity.
18. Defendants W. Quinn Buckner, Cindy Lucchese, Cathy Langham, Jeremy A.
Morris, J. Timothy Morris, Kyle S. Seibert, Donna B. Spears, Isaac Torres, and Vivian Winston
are members of the Indiana University Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees is the “Uni-
versity’s governing board, its legal owner, and its final authority.” The Board is thus responsi-
ble for management and oversight of all aspects of the University, including the bias incidents
policy. The Board Defendants are all sued in their official capacities.
BACKGROUND
I. College Students and Their First Amendment Rights
19. “The First Amendment reflects ‘a profound national commitment to the prin-
ciple that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.’” Snyder v.
Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 452 (2011) (quoting N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964)).
“The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus
is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it.” Citizens
United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 339 (2010).
20. The First Amendment’s importance is at its apex at our nation’s colleges and
universities. “The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in
the community of American schools [of higher education]. The college classroom with its
-5-
surrounding environs is peculiarly the ‘marketplace of ideas.’” Healy, 408 U.S. at 180 (quoting
Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 487 (1960)). The core principles of the First Amendment “ac-
quire a special significance in the university setting, where the free and unfettered interplay of
competing views is essential to the institution’s educational mission.” Doe v. Univ. of Mich., 721
F. Supp. 852, 863 (E.D. Mich. 1989) (citing Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967)).
“Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain
new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die.” Sweezy v.
N.H. ex rel. Wyman, 354 U.S. 234, 250 (1957).
21. The First Amendment’s protections, moreover, are “not confined to the super-
vised and ordained discussion which takes place in the classroom” but extend throughout a
university’s campus. Solid Rock Found., 478 F. Supp. at 102.
22. Put simply, “First Amendment protections [do not] apply with less force on
college campuses than in the community at large.” Healy, 408 U.S. at 180. “The mere dissem-
ination of ideas—no matter how offensive to good taste—on a state university campus may
not be shut off in the name alone of ‘conventions of decency.’” Papish v. Bd. of Curators of Univ.
of Mo., 410 U.S. 667, 670 (1973). Indeed, “the point of all speech protection is … to shield just
those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.” Hurley v. Irish-
American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557, 574 (1995). These princi-
ples apply with more force “[i]n our current national condition,” not less. Fenves, 979 F.3d at
339.
-6-
II. Universities’ Use of Bias Response Teams to Chill Speech

23. Instead of promoting the “robust exchange of ideas,” Keyishian, 385 U.S. at 603,
universities are now more interested in protecting students from ideas that make them un-
comfortable. Universities do this by adopting policies and procedures that discourage speech
by students who dare to disagree with the prevailing campus orthodoxy.
24. One tried-and-true method of accomplishing this feat is the campus speech
code. Speech codes, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
(FIRE), are “university regulations prohibiting expression that would be constitutionally pro-
tected in society at large.” Spotlight on Speech Codes 2022 at 9, FIRE, perma.cc/4P23-HJWV.
25. Speech codes punish students for undesirable categories of speech such as “har-
assment,” “bullying,” “hate speech,” and “incivility.” Because these policies impose vague,
overbroad, content-based (and often viewpoint-based) restrictions on speech, federal courts
regularly strike them down. Id. at 9; see Fenves, 979 F.3d at 338-39 n.17 (collecting “a consistent
line of cases that have uniformly found campus speech codes unconstitutionally overbroad or
vague”).
26. Because express speech codes fare poorly in court, universities are increasingly
turning to a new, innovative way to deter disfavored speech—so-called “bias response teams.”
See Free Speech in the Crosshairs: Bias Reporting on College Campuses, Speech First (2022),
perma.cc/DX37-LX3F (reporting that the number of bias response teams at American uni-
versities nationwide has doubled in less than five years).
27. Living up to their Orwellian name, bias response teams encourage students to
monitor each other’s speech and report incidents of “bias” to the University (often
-7-
anonymously). “Bias” is defined incredibly broadly and covers wide swaths of protected
speech; in fact, speech is often labeled “biased” based solely on the listener’s subjective reac-
tion to it.
28. Students have been reported to bias response teams for writing a satirical article
about “safe spaces,” tweeting “#BlackLivesMatter,” chalking “Build the Wall” on a sidewalk,
and expressing support for Donald Trump. Bias Response Team Report 2017, at 15-18, FIRE,
perma.cc/84NZ-SM2E.
29. After receiving reports of a bias incident, bias response teams typically log the
incident, investigate it, meet with the relevant parties, attempt to reeducate the “offender,” and
can recommend formal or informal discipline.
30. Although universities claim this process is entirely voluntary, they know stu-
dents do not see it that way. As the Sixth Circuit has explained, an “invitation from [a bias
response team] to meet could carry an implicit threat of consequence should a student decline
the invitation.” Schlissel, 939 F.3d at 765. Even when “there is no indication that the invitation
to meet contains overt threats,” the University’s disciplinary “referral power lurks in the back-
ground.” Id.
31. A 2017 report from FIRE found that bias-response teams monitor protected
expression and lead to “a surveillance state on campus where students and faculty must guard
their every utterance for fear of being reported to and investigated by the administration.” Bias
Response Team Report 2017, at 28. “[T]he posture taken by many Bias Response Teams,” the
study found, “is all too likely to create profound risks to freedom of expression, freedom of
association, and academic freedom on campus.” Id. at 5.
-8-
32. Other universities have discovered that bias response teams chill student
speech. The University of Northern Colorado, for example, shuttered its bias response team
in 2016, explaining that it had come “at the expense of free speech and academic freedom”
and that its so-called “voluntary” processes “made people feel that we were telling them what
they should and shouldn’t say.” The University of Iowa likewise scrapped its plans to create a
bias response team, citing their “high failure rate” and their tendency to “become almost pu-
nitive.”
33. University professors have similarly observed that bias response teams “result
in a troubling silence: Students, staff, and faculty [are] afraid to speak their minds, and individ-
uals or groups [are] able to leverage bias reporting policies to shut down unpopular or minority
viewpoints.” Snyder & Khalid, The Rise of “Bias Response Teams” on Campus, The New Republic
(Mar. 30, 2016), perma.cc/CS56-LQ7B; see also Keith Whittington, Free Speech and the Diverse
University, 87 Fordham L. Rev. 2453, 2466 (2019) (“[E]fforts [by bias response teams] to en-
courage students to anonymously initiate disciplinary proceedings for perceived acts of bias or
to shelter themselves from disagreeable ideas are likely to subvert free and open inquiry and
invite fears of political favoritism.”).
34. Courts have likewise recognized the chilling effect of bias response teams that
closely resemble Indiana’s. After Speech First challenged similar bias response teams at the
University of Texas, the University of Michigan, and the University of Central Florida, all three
schools disbanded their teams. The Sixth Circuit held that Michigan’s team imposed an “ob-
jective chill” on speech because it “act[ed] by way of implicit threat of punishment and intim-
idation to quell speech.” Schlissel, 939 F.3d at 765. The Fifth Circuit agreed, stressing that
-9-
Texas’s team “represent[ed] the clenched fist in the velvet glove of student speech regulation.”
Fenves, 979 F.3d at 338. The Eleventh Circuit likewise held that “the average college-aged stu-
dent would be intimidated—and thereby chilled from exercising her free-speech rights—by
subjection to [Central Florida’s] bias-related-incidents policy.” Cartwright, 32 F.4th at 1124.
35. Unsurprisingly, the rise of bias response teams and speech codes is matched by
a parallel rise in the percentage of college students who feel like they cannot express contro-
versial opinions on campus. According to a September 2020 survey of more than 20,000
American college students, an astonishing 42 percent of students believe their university would
punish them for making an offensive or controversial statement. 2020 College Free Speech Rank-
ings, at 19, FIRE (Sept. 2020), perma.cc/TSJ6-HRE7. A separate survey found that, among
non-freshman college students, nearly half reported that “sharing ideas and asking questions
without fear of retaliation, even when those ideas are offensive to some people,” had become
“more difficult” in the Fall 2020 semester than in previous semesters. Campus Expression Survey
Report 2020, at 3, Heterodox Academy (Mar. 2021), perma.cc/6RZA-SUE9.
36. Indiana is no exception. A 2022 campus climate survey at IU Indianapolis found
that 61% of conservative undergraduates “fear speaking up for what [they] think.” Jacob Stew-
art, IUPUI’s Future Plan Promotes DEI Initiatives, Ignores Student Concerns on Free Expression, Cam-
pus Reform (July 10, 2023), perma.cc/C2M8-UQXP.
III. The University’s Bias Incidents Policy

37. The University has adopted a “bias incidents” policy designed to deter, sup-
press, and punish disfavored and controversial speech.
- 10 -
38. The University defines a “bias incident” as “any conduct, speech, or expression,
motivated in whole or in part by bias or prejudice meant to intimidate, demean, mock, degrade,
marginalize, or threaten individuals or groups based on that individual or group's actual or
perceived identities.”
39. The precise contours of what the policy forbids and what it permits are un-
clear—and the University’s circular description of a “bias incident” as “any” incident “moti-
vated … by bias” provides little guidance. One aspect of the policy is unambiguous, however:
it plainly encompasses pure speech. Students can be reported for, among other things, an
offensive “Email or Text Message” or “Phone Call,” a “Written” comment motivated by bias,
and “Verbal” offenses. Bias incidents can occur on or off campus, including on “social media”
or “other digital source[s].”
40. The University vigorously promotes the bias incidents policy and “urges anyone
who has experienced or witnessed a bias incident to report it.” Bias incident complaints can
be submitted online via a “Bias Incident Report” form on the University’s website, by emailing
an administrator directly, or through a cell phone app created by the University. The main
webpage for the IU Indianapolis Office of Student Conduct lists the University’s “Bias Inci-
dent Report” form directly between forms for reporting “harassment, discrimination, or sexual
misconduct,” “personal misconduct,” and “academic misconduct.”
41. Importantly, complaints about biased speech can be submitted anonymously.
Indeed, the University emphasizes the option of anonymity when encouraging students to
report their peers. A University webpage providing “campus resources [and] contacts” for
- 11 -
“bias incident reporting” provides a link to the complaint form with the tagline: “All you have
to do is complete a form—and it’s anonymous.”
42. When reporting biased speech, complainants specify the date and location of
the alleged incident and list key details about the “involved parties,” including the offender’s
name, University ID, and email address. Complainants are also required to provide a descrip-
tion of the incident—where they are directed to “place … language in quotes so [IU] know[s]
that it is part of the incident”—and include “supporting documentation” for the complaint,
such as “[p]hotos, video [and] email[s].” Complainants further specify whether they “directly
experienced the bias,” are “supporting individual(s) who experienced the bias,” “witnessed the
bias,” were a “viewer” of the bias who “observed [it] online,” or merely have a “bias concern
without being directly impacted.” Complainants must also specify whether the “the Police
[were] involved.”
43. The University has created “the Bias Response Team” and charged it with re-
sponding to bias incidents. This “team of trained professionals” is managed by a senior ad-
ministrator (Assistant Dean Harris on the Bloomington Campus and Vice Chancellor Betts
on the Indianapolis Campus) hired by the University “to specifically address bias reports as
[their] full-time job.” The University’s “bias response officials” take “every report they receive
seriously” and “typically” respond within “1-2 business days.” After receiving a complaint,
they initiate “the Bias Incident Process,” which includes “contact[ing] the involved parties”
when possible, “collect[ing] information” about the incident, and “discuss[ing] next steps”
with the offender and the complainant.
- 12 -
44. According to Dean Harris, he “[i]deally” tries “to match up the people involved
so they can resolve what happened between them.” The University describes this step as
“[m]ediation and facilitated dialogue.” In some cases, however, the complainant asks Harris
“to meet with the offending person to offer some educational insights” about their allegedly
problematic speech and “improve how they interact and connect with other students.” In
other cases, Harris or another member of the Bias Response Team will “[r]efer [the complain-
ant] to appropriate campus office that can effectively respond.” The Bias Response Team
advises complainants that, although its “primary goal is to provide support to the individual
or community impacted” by a bias incident, all “reports will be evaluated to determine if fur-
ther investigation is required for potential violations of university policy and/or criminal law.”
Finally, the Bias Response Team will “[l]og all reported incidents” and keep detailed records
of the allegations against the offender, ostensibly so it can “track for trends” and “notify cam-
pus leaders of ongoing bias incidents.”
IV. The Effect of the University’s Policies on Speech First’s Members

45. Speech First’s members who attend the University are suffering concrete inju-
ries as a direct result of the University’s unconstitutional policies and actions. These students
want to engage in speech covered by the University’s bias incidents policy, but they credibly
fear that the expression of their deeply held views will be considered “biased,” “margin-
aliz[ing],” “demean[ing],” “intimidating,” and the like.
46. One Speech First member, Student A, is a rising senior at the University.
47. Student A is politically conservative and holds views that are unpopular, con-
troversial, and in the minority on campus.
- 13 -
48. Student A believes that someone’s sex is determined at conception and cannot
be changed, and that every person is either male or female. He thinks gender dysphoria exists,
but it is a psychological condition that usually occurs in adolescents and is historically very
rare. Student A does not believe that “gender identity” is an inherent trait that is separable
from sex, and he thinks the fact that someone says they feel like a man or a woman (or neither)
doesn’t make that true. Student A views the increasingly common stories about adolescents
regretting their “gender transitions” after reaching adulthood as clear evidence that most chil-
dren who identify as transgender or “non-binary” are confused and should receive counseling
instead of surgical interventions. When gender identity topics arise in class or in other discus-
sions on campus, Student A wants to highlight this evidence and share his beliefs.
49. Student A has no ill will against members of the LGBT community and tries to
treat everyone he encounters with dignity and respect, but he believes that homosexuality is
immoral, and that marriage is between a man and a woman. He likewise believes that children
do best when they are raised in a nuclear family with a mother and a father. For these reasons,
Student A does not think that surrogacy arrangements between two men and a “surrogate
parent” should be celebrated or promoted the way they frequently are in mainstream dis-
course. Student A believes these agreements deprive babies of their mothers and exploit
women in difficult financial circumstances, and they have no place in a moral society.
50. Student A is strenuously opposed to illegal immigration and does not think peo-
ple who are here illegally should be eligible for in-state tuition or to enroll at American univer-
sities at all. He thinks the sensitive public discourse around illegal immigration, where people
- 14 -
use euphemisms like “undocumented immigrant” instead of accurate words like “illegal,” is
absurd and inhibits the frank conversations necessary to address the border crisis.
51. Student A believes that urban crime rates that disproportionately involve Afri-
can American males are not evidence of systemic racism but of harmful cultural trends like
single-parent households and failing schools. He thinks the real problem in our criminal justice
system over the past decade has not been overenforcement of the law, but underenforcement.
52. Student A enrolled in the University because he wants to learn in a challenging
environment where students and faculty are free to engage in lively, fearless debate and delib-
eration.
53. Student A wants to engage in open and robust intellectual debate with his fellow
students about these topics in the classroom, in other areas of campus, online, and in the
broader community.
54. When another classmate or member of the university community voices con-
trary views about these and other controversial topics, including gender identity, marriage and
family, immigration, or crime, Student A wants to point out the flaws in their arguments and
convince them to change their minds.
55. Student A wants to speak directly to his classmates about these topics, and he
wants to talk frequently and repeatedly about these issues. Given his views, he knows that
many of these conversations will be heated and passionate. But he wants to have these con-
versations because he feels strongly about these issues.
56. Student A speaks about these issues in small circles of friends when he knows
that they share his opinions and are unlikely to report him for sharing his beliefs.
- 15 -
57. But the University’s bias incidents policy makes him reluctant to openly express
his opinions or have these conversations in the broader University community.
58. Student A does not fully express himself or talk about certain issues because he
knows that students, faculty, or others will likely report him to University officials for com-
mitting a “bias” incident. Because the definition of “bias” is so broad and vague, Student A is
confident that someone will find his speech to be “biased.” He worries that there are other
students who will “catch” him engaging in “biased” speech and that the University will take
action against him. For example, Student A is afraid that the Bias Response Team will keep a
record on him, share the allegations with campus leaders and others within the university, call
him in for meetings, or refer the allegations to the Office of Student Conduct.
59. Another Speech First member, Student B, is a rising senior at the University.
60. Student B is politically conservative and holds views that are unpopular, con-
troversial, and in the minority on campus.
61. Student B believes that the federal government needs to vigorously enforce our
immigration laws, particularly at the southern border. He thinks that many of the illegal immi-
grants who are coming across the border do not have legitimate asylum claims and aren’t really
“refugees.” They are economic migrants who are taking jobs and public resources away from
taxpaying Americans who need them.
62. Student B supports the State of Israel and believes that they have the right to
forcefully defend themselves against terrorist attacks like the one on October 7, 2023. Student
B thinks that most protestors who align themselves with the Palestinian cause and condemn
Israel either tolerate antisemitism or are antisemitic themselves.
- 16 -
63. Student B is strongly opposed to affirmative action and thinks that outcomes
should be determined by merit rather than skin color. He believes that, if affirmative action
were used to benefit white individuals instead of racial minorities, then everyone would iden-
tify it as the racist system that it is. Student B likewise believes that the concept of “racial
equity,” as opposed to equal opportunity, is fundamentally un-American.
64. Student B enrolled in the University because he wants to learn in a challenging
eration.
65. Student B wants to engage in open and robust intellectual debate with his fellow
broader community.
trary views about these and other controversial topics, including immigration, the Israel-Pal-
estine conflict, or affirmative action, Student B wants to point out the flaws in their arguments
and convince them to change their minds.
67. Student B wants to speak directly to his classmates about these topics, and he
wants to talk frequently and repeatedly on these issues. Given his views, he knows that many
of these conversations will be heated and passionate. But he wants to have these conversations
because he feels strongly about these issues.
68. Student B speaks about these issues in small circles of friends when he knows
that they share his opinions and are unlikely to report him for sharing his beliefs.
- 17 -
69. The University’s bias incidents policy, however, makes him reluctant to openly
express his opinions or have these conversations in the broader University community.
70. Student B does not fully express himself or talk about certain issues because he
mitting a “bias” incident. Because the definition of “bias” is so broad and vague, Student B is
action against him. For example, Student B is afraid that the Bias Response Team will keep a
71. A third Speech First member, Student C, is a rising sophomore at the University.
72. Student C is politically conservative and holds political beliefs that are unpopu-
lar, controversial, and in the minority on campus.
73. Student C believes that abortion is a grave evil that should be illegal at all stages
of pregnancy. Mothers and fathers should not be allowed to “choose” whether an innocent
baby should live or die simply because its existence is inconvenient. Student C believes that
abortion harms women in addition to infants, and he wants to point out that organizations
like Planned Parenthood especially target women in low-income and majority-minority neigh-
borhoods.
74. Student C believes that the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion movement is fun-
damentally racist and harmful to society. He believes that giving favorable treatment to racial
minorities solely because of their skin color is just as wrong as giving it to white people because
- 18 -
of theirs. Student C thinks college students in 2024 are not responsible for slavery in the 1800s
or segregation in the Jim Crow era, and that they should not be punished to atone for the
failings of previous generations.
75. Student C believes that sex is determined by biology, not someone’s internal
sense of “maleness” or “femaleness.” He believes that men and women have significant phys-
iological differences that do not disappear just because someone changes how they identify
themselves. For this reason, Student C believes that biological males who identify as
transgender or non-binary should not be allowed to compete in women’s sports. Student C
believes these men are simply taking opportunities away from actual women, depriving them
of the joys of fair competition, and in many cases harming them psychologically by using the
same locker rooms as them.
76. Student C enrolled in the University because he wants to learn in a challenging
eration.
77. Student C wants to engage in open and robust intellectual debate with his fellow
broader community.
trary views about these and other controversial topics, including abortion, the DEI movement,
or gender identity, Student C wants to point out the flaws in their arguments and convince
them to change their minds.
- 19 -
79. Student C wants to speak directly to his classmates about these topics, and he
wants to talk frequently and repeatedly on these issues. Given his views, he knows that some
80. Student C frequently discusses these issues with small circles of classmates who
he knows share his views, and also in certain circumstances when he knows a classmate is
unlikely to report him for sharing his beliefs.
82. Student C does not fully express himself or talk about certain issues because he
mitting a “bias” incident. Because the definition of “bias” is so broad and vague, Student C is
action against him. For example, Student C is afraid that the Bias Response Team will keep a
83. A fourth Speech First member, Student D, is a rising sophomore at the Univer-
sity.
84. Student D is politically conservative and holds political beliefs that are unpop-
ular, controversial, and in the minority on campus.
- 20 -
85. Student D believes that DEI is a racist ideology that divides Americans and
exacerbates racial tensions rather than healing them. He believes the idea that some individuals
are “oppressors” and others are “oppressed” by virtue of their race and sex is infantilizing and
reduces people to stereotypes. Student D thinks the notion of “white privilege” ignores the
fact that white people, like people of every other race, have a wide variety of backgrounds and
life circumstances—many of which are the opposite of privileged. Student D believes that, by
treating individuals based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character,
DEI proponents are engaging in the same race-reductionism practiced by segregationists in
previous generations.
86. Student D believes that abortion is barbaric and that those who promote it are
enabling the murder of the most vulnerable members of our society. He thinks most of the
men who describe themselves as “pro-choice” are just trying to avoid taking any responsibility
for the children they bring into the world.
87. Student D believes that gender-identity theory is divorced from reality and that
people are either male or female. He thinks the social movement to “accept” and “affirm”
transgender, “non-binary,” or other “gender-nonconforming identifies” is destructive and
places women at risk.
88. Student D also believes that unchecked illegal immigration increases crime and
steals jobs and social services from Americans who need them. Student D thinks that provid-
ing public benefits to people who are here illegally only incentivizes others to break our laws
and come here too. He likewise believes that many of the South and Central American
- 21 -
countries that are turning a blind eye towards the hundreds of thousands of people heading
toward our southern border are willingly exporting problematic elements of their own socie-
ties.
89. Student D enrolled in the University because he wants to learn in a challenging
eration.
90. Student D wants to engage in open and robust intellectual debate with his fellow
broader community.
trary views about these and other controversial topics, including race, abortion, sex, gender,
or immigration, Student D wants to point out the flaws in their arguments and convince them
to change their minds.
92. Student D wants to speak directly to his classmates about these topics, and he
wants to talk frequently and repeatedly on these issues. Given his views, he knows that some
93. Student D frequently discusses these issues with small circles of classmates who
he knows share his views, and also in certain circumstances when he knows a classmate is
unlikely to report him for sharing his beliefs.
- 22 -
95. Student D does not fully express himself or talk about certain issues because he
mitting a “bias” incident. Because the definition of “bias” is so broad and vague, Student D is
action against him. For example, Student D is afraid that the Bias Response Team will keep a
96. A fifth Speech First member, Student E, is a rising sophomore at the University.
97. Student E is politically conservative and holds political beliefs that are unpopu-
lar, controversial, and in the minority on campus.
98. Student E believes that sex is determined by biology, cannot be changed, and
does not exist on a “spectrum.” As a woman, she thinks it’s ridiculous and offensive when
biological males claim to be female and insist that other students refer to them as “she” or
“her.” She has no desire to be rude or hurtful to others, but she does not want to be forced to
use “preferred pronouns” that conflict with reality—and her Christian beliefs—simply be-
cause someone believes “their truth” is that they are a woman. When Student E hears class-
mates assert that “a woman is anyone who identifies as one” or that “trans women are
women,” she wants to respond with her belief that biological sex is binary.
99. Student E likewise believes that allowing biological males who identify as
transgender women to access women’s bathrooms or locker rooms and to compete in
women’s sports threatens the privacy and safety of women and young girls. She believes that
- 23 -
men and women have innate physiological differences, and anyone who pretends those dif-
ferences do not exist is prioritizing political correctness over common sense.
100. Student E thinks the Black Lives Matter movement unnecessarily divides Amer-
icans and stokes racial resentment. She believes that every life has dignity and that Black Lives
Matter activists’ objection to the phrase “all lives matter” implies that they believe that some
lives are more important than others.
101. Student E enrolled in the University because she wants to learn in a challenging
eration.
102. Student E wants to engage in open and robust intellectual debate with her fellow
broader community.
trary views about these and other controversial topics, including sex, gender, and race, Student
E wants to point out the flaws in their arguments and convince them to change their minds.
104. Student E wants to speak directly to her classmates about these topics, and she
wants to talk frequently and repeatedly on these issues. Given her views, she knows that many
people will have strong opposing views. But she wants to have these conversations because
he feels strongly about these issues.
105. Student E frequently discusses these issues with small circles of classmates who
she knows share her views, and also in certain circumstances when she knows a classmate is
unlikely to report her for sharing her beliefs.
- 24 -
106. The University’s bias incidents policy, however, makes her reluctant to openly
express her opinions or have these conversations in the broader University community.
107. Student E does not fully express herself or talk about certain issues because she
knows that students, faculty, or others will likely report her to University officials for commit-
ting a “bias” incident. Because the definition of “bias” is so broad and vague, Student E is
confident that someone will find her speech to be “biased.” She worries that there are other
students who will “catch” her engaging in “biased” speech and that the University will take
action against her. For example, Student E is afraid that the Bias Response Team will keep a
record on her, share the allegations with campus leaders and others within the university, call
her in for meetings, or refer the allegations to the Office of Student Conduct.
COUNT I
Violation of the First Amendment
(Bias Incidents Policy)
108. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the prior allegations in this complaint.
109. The University’s definition of a “bias incident” encompasses speech that is fully
protected under the First Amendment.
110. The bias incidents policy is a content-based and viewpoint-based restriction on
speech. It is presumptively unconstitutional and cannot survive strict scrutiny.
111. The policy is unconstitutionally overbroad as it encompasses protected speech,
and there are a substantial number of instances where the policy cannot be applied consistent
with the First Amendment.
112. The University openly acknowledges that students can face disciplinary sanc-
tions for committing “bias incidents,” which renders the policy unconstitutional on its own.
- 25 -
Otherwise, the University would not specify that “reports will be evaluated to determine if
further investigation is required for potential violations of university policy,” promise to “re-
fer” complaints “to appropriate campus offices that can effectively respond,” or emphasize
that the policy applies to speech based on protected characteristics “identified in the student
code of conduct.” But even when students cannot be formally disciplined, the bias-incident
protocol objectively chills speech by “log[ging] all reported incidents and track[ing] for
trends,” threatening students with negative consequences, and subjecting them to burdensome
administrative processes. See Schlissel, 939 F.3d 756; Fenves, 979 F.3d 319; Cartwright, 32 F.4th
at 1123.
113. This overbroad policy chills protected speech and expression.
114. Defendants adopted this unconstitutional policy under color of state law.
COUNT II
Violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments: Void for Vagueness
(Bias Incidents Policy)
115. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the prior allegations in this complaint.
116. The bias incidents policy gives students no guidance about what speech is per-
mitted and what speech isn’t, and the policy authorizes arbitrary and discriminatory enforce-
ment.
117. The policy defines “bias incident” as “any conduct, speech, or expression, mo-
tivated in whole or in part by bias or prejudice meant to intimidate, demean, mock, degrade,
marginalize, or threaten individuals or groups based on that individual or group's actual or
perceived identities.” The policy does not define “bias” or any other operative term. And alt-
hough the University characterizes bias incidents as distinct from punishable “harassment or
- 26 -
discrimination” under the Code of Conduct, it frequently conflates the two in public state-
ments to the student body.
118. The bias incidents policy encompasses speech and conduct on and off campus,
including statements made on “social media” or while riding “public transportation.”
119. The policy turns on unpredictable assessments about whether student speech is
“motivated in whole or in part by bias or prejudice” against a person or group’s “actual or
perceived identities.” Those terms are undefined and subjective. They “beg for clarification.”
Fenves, 979 F.3d at 332.
120. The policy’s vague standard deprives students of “a reasonable opportunity to
understand what conduct [the policy] prohibits.” Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 730, 732 (2002).
121. The policy is also “susceptible to discriminatory or arbitrary enforcement.” Bell
v. Keating, 697 F.3d 445, 462 (7th Cir. 2012).
122. The bias incidents policy is thus void for vagueness.
123. Defendants adopted this unconstitutional policy under color of state law.
WHEREFORE, Speech First respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in
favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants and provide the following relief:
A. A declaratory judgment that the University’s bias incidents policy violates the
First and Fourteenth Amendments;
B. A permanent injunction barring Defendants from enforcing the University’s
bias incidents policy;
- 27 -
C. A permanent injunction barring Defendants from investigating, logging, threat-
ening, referring, or punishing (formally or informally) students for bias incidents;
D. A preliminary injunction granting the relief specified above during the pendency
of this action;
E. Plaintiff’s reasonable costs and expenses of this action, including attorneys’ fees,
per 42 U.S.C. §1988 and all other applicable laws; and
F. All other relief that Plaintiff is entitled to.
Dated: May 29, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Zachary Kester /s/ Cameron T. Norris

Zachary Kester J. Michael Connolly (pro hac vice forthcoming)
CHARITABLE ALLIES Cameron T. Norris (application for admission
3500 Depauw Blvd., Suite 3090 pending)
Indianapolis, IN 46268 James F. Hasson (pro hac vice forthcoming)
463-229-0240 Thomas S. Vaseliou (pro hac vice forthcoming)
zkester@charitableallies.org CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC
1600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 700
Arlington, VA 22209
(703) 243-9423
mike@consovoymccarthy.com
cam@consovoymccarthy.com
james@consovoymccarthy.com
tvaseliou@consovoymccarthy.com
- 28 -
VERIFICATION
I, Cherise Trump, declare as follows:
1. I am the Executive Director of Speech First, Inc., the plaintiff in this case.
2. I have reviewed this complaint.
3. For the allegations within my personal knowledge, I believe them all to be true.
4. For the allegations not within my personal knowledge, I believe them all to be
true based on my review of the cited policies and documents and based on my conversations
with members of Speech First, including Students A, B, C, D, and E.
5. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 29, 2024
Cherise Trump, Executive Director of

Speech First, Inc.
- 29 -
Case 1:24-cv-00898-JPH-MGCIVIL
JS 44 (Rev. 10/20) COVER
Document SHEET
1-1 Filed 05/29/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 30
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
Speech First, Inc. Pamela Whitten, in her official capacity as President of
Indiana University, et al.
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Washington, D.C. County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Monroe
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Cameron T. Norris (Consovoy McCarthy PLLC, 1600
Wilson Blvd Ste 700, Arlington, VA 22209 703-243-9423)
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government ✖ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR 880 Defend Trade Secrets 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards Act of 2016 (15 USC 1681 or 1692)
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 485 Telephone Consumer
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management SOCIAL SECURITY Protection Act
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
210 Land Condemnation ✖ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 893 Environmental Matters
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 895 Freedom of Information
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence or Defendant) 896 Arbitration
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 871 IRS—Third Party 899 Administrative Procedure
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION 26 USC 7609 Act/Review or Appeal of
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application Agency Decision
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration 950 Constitutionality of
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions State Statutes
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
✖ 1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
28 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Violation of First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: Yes ✖ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
May 29, 2024 /s/ Cameron T. Norris
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00898-JPH-MG Document 1-1 Filed 05/29/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 31
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 10/20)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then
the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service.
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
Southern District
__________ Districtof
ofIndiana
__________
Speech First, Inc. )

)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
Pamela Whitten, in her official capacity as President )
of Indiana University, et al.
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Pamela Whitten

President, Indiana University
107 S. Indiana Avenue
Bloomington, IN 47405
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are:
Cameron T. Norris
Consovoy McCarthy PLLC
1600 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 700
Arlington, VA 22209
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .
’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or
’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or
’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
’ Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:


for the
Southern District
ofIndiana
__________

)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Lamar R. Hylton

Vice Provost for Student Life, Indiana University Bloomington
Cameron T. Norris
Arlington, VA 22209
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
Southern District
ofIndiana
__________

)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Kathy Adams Riester

Associate Vice Provost for Student Life and Dean of Students
Indiana University Bloomington
Cameron T. Norris
Arlington, VA 22209
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
Southern District
ofIndiana
__________

)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Cedric Harris

Assistant Dean for Student Support and Bias Education, Indiana University Bloomington
Cameron T. Norris
Arlington, VA 22209
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
Southern District
ofIndiana
__________

)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Jason Spratt

Dean of Students, Indiana University Indianapolis
Campus Center CE 270
420 University Blvd.
Indianapolis, IN 46202
Cameron T. Norris
Arlington, VA 22209
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
Southern District
ofIndiana
__________

)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Heather Brake

Associate Dean of Students for Student Conduct and Advocacy
Indiana University Indianapolis
Campus Center CE 270
Cameron T. Norris
Arlington, VA 22209
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
Southern District
ofIndiana
__________

)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Katherine Betts

Assistant Vice Chancellor of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Indiana University Indianapolis
UC115D
Cameron T. Norris
Arlington, VA 22209
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
Southern District
ofIndiana
__________

)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) W. Quinn Buckner

Indiana University Board of Trustees
Cameron T. Norris
Arlington, VA 22209
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
Southern District
ofIndiana
__________

)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Cindy Lucchese

Cameron T. Norris
Arlington, VA 22209
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
Southern District
ofIndiana
__________

)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Cathy Langham

Cameron T. Norris
Arlington, VA 22209
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
Southern District
ofIndiana
__________

)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Jeremy A. Morris

Cameron T. Norris
Arlington, VA 22209
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
Southern District
ofIndiana
__________

)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) J. Timothy Morris

Cameron T. Norris
Arlington, VA 22209
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
Southern District
ofIndiana
__________

)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Kyle S. Seibert

Cameron T. Norris
Arlington, VA 22209
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
Southern District
ofIndiana
__________

)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Donna B. Spears

Cameron T. Norris
Arlington, VA 22209
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
Southern District
ofIndiana
__________

)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Isaac Torres

Cameron T. Norris
Arlington, VA 22209
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
Southern District
ofIndiana
__________

)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Vivian Winston

Cameron T. Norris
Arlington, VA 22209
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address

Lawsuit IU

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lawsuit IU

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:24-cv-00898-JPH-MG Document 1 Filed 05/29/24 Page 1 of 29 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Supp. 96, 102 (S.D. Ohio 1979).

in part by bias or prejudice meant to intimidate, demean, mock, degrade, marginalize, or

First and Fourteenth Amendments.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

States Constitution and is brought via 42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 1988.

11. Defendant Pamela Whitten is President of Indiana University. Whitten is re-

dents policy. Whitten is sued in her official capacity.

dents policy. Adams Riester is sued in her official capacity.

ington. Harris is sued in his official capacity.

Brake is sued in her official capacity.

17. Defendant Katherine Betts is Assistant Vice Chancellor of Diversity, Equity,

reports at the University. Betts is sued in her official capacity.

18. Defendants W. Quinn Buckner, Cindy Lucchese, Cathy Langham, Jeremy A.

is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it.” Citizens

United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 339 (2010).

N.H. ex rel. Wyman, 354 U.S. 234, 250 (1957).

university’s campus. Solid Rock Found., 478 F. Supp. at 102.

II. Universities’ Use of Bias Response Teams to Chill Speech

by students who dare to disagree with the prevailing campus orthodoxy.

tected in society at large.” Spotlight on Speech Codes 2022 at 9, FIRE, perma.cc/4P23-HJWV.

overbroad, content-based (and often viewpoint-based) restrictions on speech, federal courts

versities nationwide has doubled in less than five years).

can recommend formal or informal discipline.

association, and academic freedom on campus.” Id. at 5.

invite fears of political favoritism.”).

subjection to [Central Florida’s] bias-related-incidents policy.” Cartwright, 32 F.4th at 1124.

Report 2020, at 3, Heterodox Academy (Mar. 2021), perma.cc/6RZA-SUE9.

36. Indiana is no exception. A 2022 campus climate survey at IU Indianapolis found

pus Reform (July 10, 2023), perma.cc/C2M8-UQXP.

III. The University’s Bias Incidents Policy

press, and punish disfavored and controversial speech.

marginalize, or threaten individuals or groups based on that individual or group's actual or

or “other digital source[s].”

misconduct,” “personal misconduct,” and “academic misconduct.”

41. Importantly, complaints about biased speech can be submitted anonymously.

to do is complete a form—and it’s anonymous.”

with the offender and the complainant.

pus leaders of ongoing bias incidents.”

IV. The Effect of the University’s Policies on Speech First’s Members

aliz[ing],” “demean[ing],” “intimidating,” and the like.

troversial, and in the minority on campus.

52. Student A enrolled in the University because he wants to learn in a challenging

convince them to change their minds.

versations because he feels strongly about these issues.

his opinions or have these conversations in the broader University community.

troversial, and in the minority on campus.

taxpaying Americans who need them.

Israel either tolerate antisemitism or are antisemitic themselves.

equity,” as opposed to equal opportunity, is fundamentally un-American.

64. Student B enrolled in the University because he wants to learn in a challenging

and convince them to change their minds.

because he feels strongly about these issues.

lar, controversial, and in the minority on campus.

failings of previous generations.

transgender or non-binary should not be allowed to compete in women’s sports. Student C

same locker rooms as them.

76. Student C enrolled in the University because he wants to learn in a challenging

them to change their minds.

because he feels strongly about these issues.

unlikely to report him for sharing his beliefs.

ular, controversial, and in the minority on campus.

DEI proponents are engaging in the same race-reductionism practiced by segregationists in