https://x.com/gavinnewsom/status/1973869765166071897?s=46

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/opinion/trump-compact-universities-constitution.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5782478&forum_id=2#49320841)

In exchange, these universities would receive “multiple positive benefits,” including “substantial and meaningful federal grants.” The schools were warned that they were free to go a different route if any of them “elects to forgo federal benefits.” A senior White House adviser indicated that the administration wants to extend this compact to all institutions of higher education.

This is extortion, plain and simple.

A Supreme Court decision in 2012 about the Affordable Care Act explains why Mr. Trump’s proposal is unduly coercive and thus unconstitutional. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the A.C.A., also known as Obamacare, was substantially constitutional. But it declared unconstitutional a provision of the law that required states to expand their Medicaid programs or lose all federal Medicaid funds.

No state is required to take federal Medicaid money (just as no university has to take federal funds for its research and its programs). Nonetheless, the Supreme Court said that forcing states to make that choice was unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts described this as a “gun to the head” and “dragooning” the states. The administration’s proposed compact is similarly impermissibly coercive.

Moreover, there is a basic principle of constitutional law — the unconstitutional conditions doctrine — that the government cannot condition a benefit on a recipient having to give up a constitutional right. But that is exactly what the compact would do. When it calls for universities to effectively ban anything deemed to punish or belittle conservative ideas, it tramples the right to freedom of speech.

The core of the First Amendment is that the government cannot use its power to discriminate on the basis of the viewpoint expressed. But this provision would do just that in treating conservative ideas differently from liberal ones. And any restriction on belittling an idea is obviously unconstitutional; there always is a right to disagree with an idea, even in strong language. (As with “belittle,” the meaning of “conservative” is vague, leaving the definition up to the whims of members of the administration.)

I’ve seen a copy of the compact and note that it would violate the First Amendment in another way: requiring universities to have policies prohibiting “all university employees, in their capacity as university representatives,” to abstain from “actions or speech relating to societal and political events except in cases in which external events have a direct impact upon the university.” It would be hard to come up with a more explicit attempt to restrict freedom of speech.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5782478&forum_id=2#49320845)