I was talking with a colleague last night and he made an interesting point.

Last year SCOTUS waxed the trademark prohibition on 'disparaging' marks (the 'Slants' case).

Just recently they waxed the 'scandalous' and 'offensive' prohibitions (the 'FUCT clothing' case). (sorry 93, forgot to add my warface to that description. But.... it *is* that actual name and mark in dispute....)

In both instances they noted that the government, to have any heft behind their position, had to take the position that the government can engage in viewpoint based regulation, and each time the court voided that position.

It appears now that many law firms are soliciting lawsuits based on university speech codes, since the position taken by the universities in such speech codes almost invariably has to embody viewpoint regulation (i.e. offensive, or immoral speech).

Further, these cases give a huge legal buttress to the Trump administration executive order on campus free speech, which goes even further by covering private schools that “interfere with free speech”.

My colleague said that this executive order avenue coupled with these decisions opens up a whole new litigation ballpark in very, very short order.