Republican-controlled state legislatures passed the bill this spring along an almost straight party line after similar measures have not been approved in recent years. Governor Ron DeSantis signed the bill in June.

“We thought that college campuses were places where we could come into contact with ideas. Unfortunately, these are now intellectually oppressive environments, ”DeSantis said at the time. “Students should not be shielded from ideas,” he added.

The amended complaint filed Wednesday lists the union, the non-profit March for Hour Lives action fund, four professors, a college professor and four students as plaintiffs. The named defendants are members of the Richard Corcoran Board of Education and of the Board of Trustees and State Board of Education of the state university system.

By law, state universities and colleges are required to conduct an annual assessment of “intellectual freedom and diversity of perspectives” at each institution. The law tells the Governing Council and the State Board of Education to “select or create an objective, non-partisan, statistically valid survey used by each institution, taking into account the scope and members in which competing ideas and perspectives are presented. The university community, including students, faculty, and staff, are free to express their beliefs and opinions on campus and in the classroom. “

The law, which came into effect on July 1, also stipulated that schools should not “protect” students and teachers from “thoughts and opinions that they might feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, uncomfortable or offensive.”

In addition, students record lectures in connection with or as evidence of complaints filed with higher education institutions where recordings have been made, opening the procedure to prosecution based on the violation of the “right of expression”. people in schools. It allows you in connection with or in preparation for criminal or civil proceedings. “

The proceedings relate to each of these important parts of the law, alleging a violation of the right to freedom of expression and equal protection. For example, the law does not guarantee the anonymity of the investigation, arguing that if heads of state do not like the results, they can have negative consequences.

“The procedure does not explain or limit how the Florida governor, parliament, or board of directors uses the findings,” the procedure said. “If Governor DeSantis’ words in support of HB233 suggest that the results do not do enough to promote ‘intellectual freedom and diversity of perspectives,’ the results are public universities. Indicates that it will be used to reduce funding by. “

Opposition lawyers also claimed that the law was promoted ideologically.

“It was passed in an attempt to suppress liberal and progressive views and groups on the Florida public higher education campus. This was true until he was convicted, harassed and subjected to budget cuts. This was done by creating an environment hostile to these views at all of the above levels, ”the lawsuit said.

The state has not submitted a response to the proceedings assigned to Mark Walker, the Supreme Court judge of the United States District Court.

However, when House passed the bill in March, House sponsor Spencer Roach R-North Fort Myers said the completion of the investigation was voluntary for people on campus.

“I am not asking you to make political decisions here. I ask questions, I collect empirical data, future legislatures… I make political decisions with this data. “The basis of this,” Roach told members of the household.