The National Women’s Law Center fights for gender justice—in the courts, in public policy, and in our society.
Pointer et al. v. Phelps et al.
Pointer et al. v. Phelps et al.
Why It Matters
In a rush to align itself with the Trump administration’s anti-DEI views, the University of Alabama did exactly what the First Amendment forbids by shutting down two student-run magazines focused on the viewpoints of Black and women students. NWLC and our partners are standing up to defend our constitutional guarantee of free speech by fighting against efforts to silence the voices of women and Black students on college campuses.
Summary
On September 2, 2026, NWLC—in partnership with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and Covington & Burling LLP—filed an amicus brief to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the student-plaintiffs in Pointer et al. v. Phelps et al., on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
The case challenges the University of Alabama’s permanent suspension of two student-run magazines, Alice and Nineteen Fifty-Six, because of the magazines’ missions, which explicitly focus on race, gender, and sexuality. On appeal, the student-plaintiffs are urging the Eleventh Circuit to reverse the district court’s order that denied their motion for a preliminary injunction.
Our brief emphasizes the importance of student voices in public discourse, especially those voices historically underrepresented on college campuses and in the media. Public universities are vital intellectual and civic hubs, cultivating the next generation of engaged citizens and informed leaders. Student-run publications are central to that mission: they challenge students to engage with and test new ideas and to grapple with perspectives that are different from their own. Our democracy depends on a robust and diverse student press to prepare young people for full participation in civic life. Any efforts by university administrators to limit the free exchange of ideas—whether by defunding, deplatforming, or otherwise censoring student publications—therefore risk undermining the very civic and educational mission at the heart of public higher education.
In that context, our brief highlights the unique role of publications that center the perspectives of students historically underrepresented on campus and in the media—including Black, female, and LGBTQ+ students. Moreover, such publications teach students practical journalism skills and cultivate talent that sustains a press reflecting the communities it serves. Silencing publications like Alice and Nineteen Fifty-Six threatens more than any single outlet—it threatens the pipeline that keeps our media, and our multi-racial democracy, pluralistic and representative.
Our brief also challenges the district court’s flawed legal reasoning on several discrete points. First, we explain why the district court was wrong to misconstrue student-run publications as government speech—an error that invites government overreach into private student speech. Further, the district court fundamentally misinterpreted Title VI and the Supreme Court’s decision in Student’s for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College on race-conscious college admissions policies by equating exclusionary conduct with activities focused on particular communities, a conflation that risks impermissibly expanding SFFA. If allowed to stand, these errors would distort First Amendment and antidiscrimination doctrines the Court has taken care to keep narrow. Moreover, this reasoning would license public institutions to silence disfavored viewpoints and shutter dedicated spaces for particular communities to gather and organize.
