Last Updated on August 14, 2025 by Bertrand Clarke
In a landmark decision that has sparked widespread discussion across Alabama and beyond, U.S. District Judge David Proctor on August 13, 2025, declined to issue a preliminary injunction against Alabama’s controversial Senate Bill 129 (SB 129), a law restricting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in public universities and other state-funded institutions. The ruling, detailed in a comprehensive 146-page opinion, reinforces the state’s authority to regulate educational curricula and campus programs, dismissing claims from University of Alabama system professors and students that the law infringes on their constitutional rights. This decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing national debate over DEI policies, with Alabama at the forefront of redefining the boundaries of academic freedom and state oversight.
A Law Rooted in State Priorities
Signed into law by Governor Kay Ivey in 2024, SB 129 prohibits public institutions from using state funds to support DEI programs or teach what the legislation labels as “divisive concepts.” These concepts include ideas that suggest individuals of one race are inherently responsible for historical wrongs or that certain groups are inherently privileged or oppressed. The law also bans mandatory DEI training and restricts discussions that could be interpreted as promoting guilt or shame based on race, religion, or gender identity. However, it permits “objective” discussions of these topics, provided they do not compel agreement with specific viewpoints.
The legislation reflects a broader movement in conservative-led states to curb what some lawmakers view as ideologically driven programs in education. Alabama’s Republican-controlled legislature argued that SB 129 ensures neutrality in public institutions, prioritizing academic rigor over what they describe as politically charged initiatives. Supporters of the law, including Rep. Danny Garrett (R-Trussville), have emphasized that it protects students from being coerced into adopting specific ideological stances, fostering an environment where diverse perspectives can coexist without institutional bias.
The Legal Challenge: A Fight for Academic Freedom
The lawsuit, filed by a coalition of University of Alabama (UA) system professors and students, sought to block SB 129, arguing that it violates First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by stifling free speech and targeting programs that benefit marginalized groups, particularly Black students. The plaintiffs, represented by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, contended that the law’s vague language leads to “viewpoint discrimination,” forcing educators to self-censor to avoid potential repercussions. They pointed to real-world impacts, such as the closure of UA’s Black Student Union and Safe Zone (an LGBTQ+ resource center) in August 2024, as evidence of the law’s chilling effect on campus life.
Testimony from the plaintiffs painted a vivid picture of the law’s consequences. Dana Patton, a political science professor at UA, described being investigated after anonymous complaints alleged her interdisciplinary honors program promoted “socialism” and “systemic racism.” Patton testified that she removed course materials and stopped sharing lecture slides online out of fear of further scrutiny, a move she described as self-censorship. Similarly, student Sydney Testman, a rising senior, shared that she lost her scholarship when the Social Justice Advocacy Council, where she worked, was defunded due to SB 129 compliance measures. “No one wants to admit it’s disproportionately affecting Black students,” Testman told the court, highlighting the law’s impact on minority communities.
The plaintiffs argued that these changes not only disrupted academic programs but also undermined the university’s ability to foster inclusive environments. They claimed the law’s enforcement created a climate of fear, with professors altering curricula and student organizations losing funding and campus spaces. Antonio Ingram, an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, underscored the group’s commitment to continuing the fight, stating, “This law, in our view, violates the First Amendment rights of students and professors, and we will press forward with the lawsuit against the UA Board of Trustees.”
Judge Proctor’s Ruling: A High Bar for Injunctions
In his ruling, Judge Proctor emphasized that a preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy” that requires plaintiffs to meet a high threshold, including demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm. He concluded that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy these requirements, particularly in proving that SB 129’s restrictions directly caused their alleged injuries. Proctor noted that classroom speech, as argued by the UA Board of Trustees, constitutes “government speech” subject to state regulation, not private speech protected under the First Amendment. This distinction was pivotal in his decision to uphold the law’s enforcement.
Proctor also dismissed Governor Ivey as a defendant, stating that none of the plaintiffs’ injuries could be directly traced to her actions beyond signing the legislation. “There is simply nothing in SB 129 or the evidence presented that implicates Governor Ivey in any action taken in relation to the law,” he wrote. This move narrowed the lawsuit’s scope, leaving the UA Board of Trustees as the sole defendant as the case progresses.
The Alabama Attorney General’s office, representing Ivey, argued that the plaintiffs’ fears of enforcement were not “objectively reasonable,” as no faculty had been terminated or disciplined under the law. The UA Board’s legal team, led by attorney Jay Ezelle, further contended that the university had mitigated harm by securing private funding for some affected student groups and ensuring access to campus facilities. These arguments resonated with Proctor, who found insufficient evidence to warrant halting the law’s implementation.
A Broader Context: DEI Under Scrutiny Nationwide
Alabama’s SB 129 is part of a wave of anti-DEI legislation sweeping Republican-led states, including Florida, Texas, and Utah. According to a 2025 report by the Chronicle of Higher Education, at least 20 states have introduced or passed laws restricting DEI programs in public institutions since 2023. These efforts stem from a belief among some policymakers that DEI initiatives promote divisive ideologies and undermine merit-based systems. In Alabama, the law’s passage followed a national trend of closing DEI offices, with UA announcing in July 2024 the replacement of its DEI offices with new programs focused on broader student success initiatives.
Nationally, the debate over DEI has intensified following executive actions by the Trump administration. On February 21, 2025, a Maryland federal court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against parts of two Trump executive orders targeting DEI programs, citing First Amendment violations and unconstitutional vagueness. However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed this injunction on March 14, 2025, allowing federal agencies to enforce anti-DEI provisions pending further review. This federal context underscores the complexity of Alabama’s legal battle, as state and national policies intersect in shaping the future of DEI in education.
Impact on Alabama’s Campuses
The effects of SB 129 are already visible across Alabama’s public universities. At UA, the closure of the Black Student Union and Safe Zone has left students like Testman scrambling to find alternative resources. Faculty members report a cautious approach to teaching, with some avoiding topics like systemic racism or gender identity to steer clear of potential complaints. A 2025 survey by the Alabama Education Association found that 62% of public university instructors felt compelled to alter course content due to SB 129, with 45% citing fear of anonymous complaints as a primary concern.
Despite these challenges, supporters of the law argue it promotes fairness by ensuring state-funded institutions remain neutral. Rep. Garrett, who warned Patton about legislative scrutiny, has defended SB 129 as a necessary step to prevent ideological overreach. “We’re not banning discussions of history or culture,” Garrett said in a July 2025 interview with Alabama Public Radio. “We’re ensuring that no student or faculty member is forced to adopt a particular worldview.”
What’s Next for the Lawsuit?
While Judge Proctor’s ruling is a setback for the plaintiffs, the lawsuit against the UA Board of Trustees will continue. Ingram, the NAACP attorney, expressed determination to challenge the law’s constitutionality, arguing that its vague language invites arbitrary enforcement and disproportionately harms minority students. The case is expected to proceed to a full trial, with potential appeals to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals or even the U.S. Supreme Court, given the national implications.
Legal experts predict a contentious road ahead. “This case could set a precedent for how states balance academic freedom with legislative oversight,” said Dr. Emily Harper, a constitutional law professor at Auburn University. “The tension between First Amendment rights and state authority over public institutions is at the heart of this dispute.”
A State Divided
As Alabama grapples with SB 129’s implications, the ruling has deepened divisions among educators, students, and policymakers. For some, it’s a victory for state sovereignty and academic neutrality; for others, it’s a blow to inclusivity and free expression. With the 2025-2026 academic year approaching, universities face the challenge of navigating compliance while maintaining vibrant campus communities.
The debate over DEI in Alabama is far from over. As the lawsuit moves forward, all eyes will be on how the state’s courts and legislature respond to this evolving legal and cultural landscape. For now, SB 129 stands as a bold assertion of Alabama’s priorities, but its long-term impact on education and equity remains an open question.
