2026-03

Emergency Resolution:

In Defense of Academic Freedom and the Rights to Free Speech and Peaceful Assembly and Protest

Sponsored by

Sen. Teresa Ruiz (NJ), Sen. Margo Juarez (NE) and
Sen. Cristina Castro (IL)

Reported to the Caucus by the
NHCSL Education Task Force

Sen. Teresa Ruiz (NJ), Chair

Unanimously approved by the NHCSL Executive Committee on behalf of the entire Caucus on April 10, 2026

I. Recent Enforcement Actions and Constitutional Implications

WHEREAS, recent federal immigration enforcement actions in Minnesota, including large-scale operations reported as “Operation Metro Surge” in the Minneapolis–Saint Paul metropolitan region, have generated widespread fear within immigrant communities and prompted sustained public demonstrations, raising urgent national concerns regarding the limits of federal enforcement authority in civilian settings; and,

WHEREAS, in Resolution 2025-05 this Caucus endorsed Safe Zone and Welcoming Learning Environment Policies for all students, regardless of immigration status; and,

WHEREAS, communities across Minnesota—including students, educators, journalists, legal observers, and neighborhood residents—have reported raids and confrontations occurring in proximity to schools, workplaces, and community spaces, raising concerns about the protection of constitutional rights and the safety of those engaged in civic participation; and,

WHEREAS, students and families have reported witnessing or experiencing immigration enforcement activity near school communities, creating fear among children, disrupting learning environments, and undermining the ability of educators and schools to provide safe and supportive educational spaces; and,

WHEREAS, allegations of excessive force, wrongful detention, retaliatory arrests, and fatal encounters involving immigration enforcement officials have prompted civil-rights investigations, litigation, and calls for accountability from educators, labor organizations, civil-rights advocates, and community leaders; and,

WHEREAS, publicly reported deaths occurring during or following encounters with immigration enforcement authorities have raised serious questions regarding accountability, use-of-force standards, and adherence to constitutional protections governing law-enforcement conduct; and,

WHEREAS, similar constitutional concerns have arisen in Oregon, Washington, D.C., Texas, and other jurisdictions where enforcement responses to public demonstrations resulted in litigation, judicial review, and national debate regarding protest rights and government use of force; and,

WHEREAS, national data indicate that more than 1,000 civilians are killed annually by law enforcement in the United States, underscoring the heightened constitutional risk when armed enforcement operations intersect with civilian protest activity; and,

WHEREAS, immigrant communities, communities of color, students, educators, labor organizers, journalists, and legal observers are often disproportionately impacted when enforcement activity intersects with civic participation and public protest; and,

II. Legal Background

WHEREAS, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the rights to free speech, peaceful assembly, and petition—fundamental liberties further applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment; and,,

WHEREAS, these rights are protected because protest and dissent in civic participation are central to a functioning democracy and thus must not be censored, and while they may be confronted with disagreement, they should not be subject to retaliation or political interference; and,

WHEREAS, the NHCSL further recognizes that students, educators, and workers must be able to express viewpoints, organize, and participate in peaceful protest without fear of discipline, arrest, surveillance, or professional retaliation; and,

WHEREAS, attempts to suppress protest through punitive measures, institutional discipline, or government overreach undermine both academic freedom and democratic participation; and,

WHEREAS, longstanding Supreme Court precedent confirms that peaceful protest in traditional public forums may not be criminalized or suppressed based on viewpoint, and that speech may not be punished absent incitement to imminent lawless action;[1] and,

WHEREAS, in Plyler v. Doe the Supreme Court affirmed that children residing in the United States—regardless of immigration status—have a constitutional right to access public education, and it follows that the direct or indirect bullying or harassment of students for their perceived immigration status is not protected speech; and,

WHEREAS, the Fourth Amendment protects all persons, regardless of immigration status,[2] against unreasonable searches and seizures, including unlawful arrest, detention, and excessive or deadly force by law-enforcement officers; and,

WHEREAS, in Nieves v. Bartlett (2019),[3] the Supreme Court reaffirmed that retaliatory arrest motivated by protected speech violates the First Amendment; and,

WHEREAS, in Graham v. Connor (1989), the Court held that law-enforcement use of force must be objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; and,

WHEREAS, executive officials—including the President, governors, Cabinet secretaries, agency heads, and administration officials—lack constitutional authority to suspend, narrow, redefine, or rely on retaliatory, content-based or discriminatory motives to selectively enforce clearly established First or Fourth Amendment rights, or any constitutional rights, protections;[4] and,

WHEREAS, in traditional public forums, the First Amendment does not permit confining peaceful protest to remote, symbolic, or pre-approved “free speech zones” when such restrictions suppress dissent or limit access to decision-makers; and,

WHEREAS, time, place, and manner restrictions must be content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication; and,

III. Educational, Economic and Democratic Context

WHEREAS, colleges and universities are vital democratic institutions, and the First Amendment protects the rights of students, faculty, staff, and community members to engage in peaceful protest and political expression on public campuses; and,

WHEREAS, schools, colleges and universities, houses of worship, healthcare facilities, and other community-serving institutions are sensitive locations where enforcement actions must be carefully constrained to avoid chilling constitutional rights and access to essential services; and,

WHEREAS, state legislatures have both the authority and responsibility to ensure that public colleges and universities adopt policies that protect lawful protest, prohibit viewpoint discrimination, and prevent institutional retaliation against students, faculty, and staff engaged in constitutionally protected expression; and,

WHEREAS, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association affirm that “academic freedom includes the right of educators to teach accurate, evidence-based content and to engage students in critical thinking without fear of censorship, retaliation, or political interference,” recognizing that educator voice and professional judgment are essential to high-quality public education; and,

WHEREAS, in Resolution 2023-09, recognized the importance collaborative leadership and shared power of educators, administrators, parents, governments and community organizations all have a meaningful voice in decisions affecting curriculum, instruction, and school governance; and,

WHEREAS, immigrants contribute approximately $3.3 trillion annually to the United States economy—about 17 percent of national GDP—and providing stable legal status could increase U.S. economic output by up to $1.7 trillion over the next decade; and,

WHEREAS, Latino students represent more than 28 percent of public school students nationwide, and more than 5 million students are classified as English Learners, reflecting the central role of immigrant families in public education; and,

WHEREAS, in Resolution 2024-01, this Caucus underscored that Latino educators remain underrepresented in the teaching profession despite rapid growth in Latino student enrollment, underscoring the importance of strengthening educator pipelines; and,

II. Use of Force, Civil Liability and Accountability

IV. Use of Force, Civil Liability and Accountability

WHEREAS, the use of excessive or retaliatory force against peaceful protesters constitutes an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment and violates clearly established law; and,

WHEREAS, the National Labor Relations Act and state labor laws protect workers’ rights to engage in protected concerted activity—including protest and public advocacy—without retaliation; and,

WHEREAS, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers have engaged in litigation, public advocacy, and policy guidance to defend academic freedom, educator voice, and constitutionally protected civic participation; and,

WHEREAS, officials who knowingly authorize, direct, or carry out unconstitutional suppression of peaceful protest may be subject to civil liability, injunctive relief, damages, attorney’s fees, disciplinary action, removal procedures, or impeachment as provided by law; and,

WHEREAS, meaningful accountability, independent oversight, and transparent reporting are essential to preserving public trust and constitutional governance.

V. Conclusions

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Hispanic Caucus for State Legislatures (NHCSL) stands unequivocally in solidarity with students, educators, workers, and community members exercising their constitutional, labor, and academic freedom rights; and,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NHCSL calls upon state legislatures to exercise their legislative, oversight, and appropriations authority to actively safeguard the rights of peaceful protest and civic participation and academic freedom through enforceable state law, regulatory frameworks, and accountability mechanisms; and,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NHCSL calls upon state legislatures to enact and strengthen laws that:

• Explicitly prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies from engaging in retaliatory arrest, detention, surveillance, or use of force against individuals engaged in lawful protest or protected speech, especially in the context of education; underscoring again that the direct or indirect bullying or harassment of students or educators for their perceived immigration status, or membership in another protected category, is not protected speech;
• Establish clear statewide use-of-force standards consistent with constitutional requirements and require de-escalation practices in protest settings;
• Mandate comprehensive, public, and disaggregated reporting of protest-related arrests, use-of-force incidents, and coordination with federal agencies;
• Condition state funding, grants, and contracts for law enforcement agencies on compliance with constitutional policing standards, including protections for protest activity;
• Create or strengthen independent civilian oversight bodies with subpoena power to investigate alleged violations of constitutional rights in protest and enforcement contexts;
• Provide a private right of action under state law allowing individuals to seek damages and injunctive relief for violations of their constitutional rights by law enforcement or other government actors;
• Prohibit or restrict state and local agencies from assisting or participating in enforcement actions in sensitive locations—including schools, colleges and universities, healthcare facilities, and houses of worship—except where required by judicial warrant;
• Require public institutions of higher education to adopt policies that protect student and faculty protest rights, prohibit viewpoint discrimination, and prevent academic or disciplinary retaliation for lawful expression;
• Protect journalists, legal observers, educators, students, and labor organizers from interference, arrest, or intimidation while engaged in lawful monitoring or participation in protest activity;
• Limit the use of surveillance technologies, data collection, and information sharing related to individuals engaged in protected speech and protest activities;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NHCSL urges state legislatures to review mutual-aid agreements, cooperative enforcement frameworks, and intergovernmental partnerships to ensure compliance with constitutional safeguards; and,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NHCSL urges state attorneys general, inspectors general, and legislative oversight bodies to investigate credible allegations of constitutional violations related to protest, enforcement activity, or suppression of speech, and to pursue appropriate civil or injunctive remedies; and,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that enforcement activity in sensitive locations must not chill constitutional rights, intimidate lawful dissent, or deter access to essential services; and,

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that NHCSL calls upon lawmakers nationwide to affirm that the right to dissent is fundamental to democracy, to protect academic freedom and educator voices, to ensure meaningful remedies for civil-rights violations, and to uphold the rule of law by holding all government actors accountable to constitutional standards.

IN ITS MEETING OF APRIL 2, 2026, THE NHCSL EDUCATION TASK FORCE UNANIMOUSLY AMENDED THIS RESOLUTION AND RECOMMENDED IT, AS AMMENDED, TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR APPROVAL AS AN EMERGENCY RESOLUTION.

AT THE REQUEST OF THE NHCSL EDUCATION TASK FORCE, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE IMMEDIATE NEEDS PROCEES OUTLINED IN THE BYLAWS, THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THIS RESOLUTION, ON BEHALF OF THE CAUCUS, ON APRIL 10, 2026, AT ITS MEETING IN NEW YORK, NY.

[1] See for example, Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939), Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963), Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 (1966), Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U.S. 111 (1969), NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982), and Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

[2] See Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) (“In the absence of probable cause or consent, [a] search violated [a Mexican citizen's] Fourth Amendment right to be free of ‘unreasonable searches and seizures.’") And see United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) (the Fourth and First Amendment protect the “class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”)

[3] 587 U.S. 391 (2019).

[4] Whren v. United States, 517 U. S. 806, 813 (1996) (“[T]he Constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on considerations such as race”).