Authored by Jonathan Turley via JonathanTurley.org,
A newly proposed bill in Congress could make a meaningful difference in the fight to restore free speech protections in higher education. The Restoring Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 2026 would address a practical problem for civil rights and free speech groups suing public universities for the denial of free speech. When universities lose at the preliminary injunction stage, advocates cannot recoup costs and fees. The bill would allow that recovery and, as a result, level the playing field with universities, which can tap public funds to litigate these cases.
We have discussed many cases where universities spend millions in public funds to support anti-free speech policies and actions. A relatively small group of public interest groups have waged these battles with a collection of individual attorneys. Universities know that a case ending in a preliminary injunction will not result in fees or costs being paid to the victorious litigant. This bill would change that.
In my book The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, I suggest various ways that Congress could reinforce free speech rights, particularly in higher education. This is precisely the type of measure that can help tangibly support that effort.
The problem that we have faced in the free-speech community is that faculty and administrators have created an echo chamber in higher education by purging departments of dissenting voices, particularly conservative and libertarian faculty. Once in control of these universities, officials proceeded to tap into public funds to not only reinforce this ideological orthodoxy but also finance litigation.
Universities routinely lose these free speech cases. However, they know that cases that end at the preliminary injunction stage will often deny litigants the ability to recover fees or costs. In Lackey v. Stinnie (2025), a divided Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs who received only a preliminary injunction before their case became moot were not "prevailing parties" eligible for fees under federal law.
The result is the use of public funds to drain the resources of free speech groups and advocates. It also adds a coercive element as universities pressure advocates to settle cases by noting that, if they secure a P.I., the university could fold and leave them without any recovery. They are literally using the public coffers to fight against free speech rights supported by the vast majority of citizens.
Congress can close this loophole and level the field. It will not transform higher education, but it will help guarantee that dissenting faculty and students have a fair chance against state universities.
The legislation is also important because, as I discuss in The Indispensable Right and prior columns, public universities are the final line of defense for free speech. Since the First Amendment applies directly to these universities, free-speech advocates have a greater ability to defend free speech and minority viewpoints at these schools. This can offer students an alternative to private universities as they seek environments with a modicum of tolerance (even if forced) for opposing viewpoints.
It is time to pass the Restoring Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 2026.
Jonathan Turley is the best-selling author of "Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution."
OCTOBER ONLY.$10 OFFYOUR NEXT ORDER.$30 min. Ends Oct 31. One per customer.GET MY $10 OFF →Signs you up for ZeroHedge Store emails. Can't be combined. Every order helps support ZeroHedge. Tyler Durden Fri, 10/02/2026 - 17:40Some of Silicon Valley's biggest AI boosters are warning that artificial intelligence could become a defining issue in the 2028 presidential election as voters grow increasingly uneasy about the massive infrastructure buildout needed to power the technology.
Box CEO Aaron Levie told the Andreessen Horowitz podcast that the next presidential contest could effectively become an "AI election," forcing candidates to confront growing public anxiety surrounding the technology.
"The next election will 100% be a referendum on AI," Levie said. "So it has to happen that 2028 is the AI election."
.@levie predicts on the @a16z podcast that the 2028 election will be a referendum on AI. pic.twitter.com/pXPPsYbYDl
— Josh Caplan (@joshdcaplan) September 30, 2026Levie argued that supporters face a messaging problem because making the case for rapid AI development is complicated, while opposition can be communicated through simple warnings about its potential dangers.
Steven Sinofsky, a board partner at a16z and former Microsoft executive, argued that AI skeptics have already seized control of the language surrounding the debate.
"We own none of the vocabulary," Sinofsky said. "The whole debate is pause. It's swarms. It's rogue. Every word has been chosen by the people who don't want to do AI."
The warning comes as President Donald Trump aggressively pushes to cement American dominance in AI, including by accelerating construction of the data centers and energy infrastructure required to support the technology.
The Trump administration's National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence calls on Congress to streamline federal permitting for AI infrastructure while ensuring residential customers do not face higher electricity bills because of new data centers.
However, public opinion suggests selling that buildout could be a political death trap for candidates seeking the highest office in the land.
A Fox News poll conducted September 11-14 found 71% of registered voters oppose an AI data center being built in their area, including 46% who strongly oppose one. Just 26% support local construction.
To make matters worse, the skepticism extends beyond where the facilities are built. A September Marquette Law School Poll found 71% of Americans believe the costs of data centers outweigh their benefits, compared with 29% who believe the benefits outweigh the costs. The survey also found 64% believe AI is bad for society, while 36% consider it a good thing.
The Trump administration has sought to tackle one of the biggest sources of voter concern: electricity prices.
Under Trump's Ratepayer Protection Pledge, major technology companies including Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, Oracle and xAI agreed to build, bring or buy new power generation and cover infrastructure upgrades required for their data centers rather than passing those costs onto households.
Tyler Durden Fri, 10/02/2026 - 17:20