Tim Bakken, West Point’s longest-serving civilian law professor, is challenging the military academy’s speech restrictions as unconstitutional, arguing they operate as an unlawful prior restraint on faculty expression and academic freedom.
Bakken filed a class-action lawsuit in September 2025 on behalf of more than 100 civilian faculty members against West Point and several academy leaders, alleging that two policies adopted under President Trump violate the First Amendment. The first, issued in February 2025, requires faculty to obtain prior approval before speaking publicly or publishing papers in their official capacity. The second, issued in August 2025, bars professors from sharing personal opinions in the classroom.
The policies stem from a January 2025 Trump executive order directing military academies to “carefully review the leadership, curriculum and instructors” and prohibiting the teaching of what the administration termed “un-American, divisive, discriminatory, radical, extremist, and irrational theories.” According to Forbes reporting on the lawsuit, Bakken argues that the approval regime operates as a content-based prior restraint and delegates “overly broad licensing discretion to a government official” without clear standards or any process for timely appeal or review.
Bakken pointed to specific examples of oversight he views as unprecedented, including academy officials asking him to provide the title of a paper before approving him to present it. He also noted that he is under contract to publish a book critical of aspects of West Point, and believes that if he is required to seek approval to use his West Point affiliation, such approval will likely be withheld.
Judge Blocks the Restrictions
On May 26, 2026, U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel issued a preliminary injunction blocking West Point from enforcing both policies against any of its civilian faculty. In her ruling, Seibel found that the preapproval policy likely violates the First Amendment as a “broad and standardless intrusion” on faculty speech rights.
The judge rejected the government’s argument that the restrictions were necessary, writing that “West Point cadets are already, by definition, smart, tough and patriotic. They are not snowflakes who will somehow be harmed by learning about controversial issues or competing viewpoints,” according to Reuters. Seibel also found that restricting classroom discussion was “nonsensical if the mission is to prepare the nation’s future military officers.”
Seibel, who was appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, said the evidence showed the policy shift was intended to compel faculty to align their speech with Trump’s views and comply with the January 2025 executive order. Bakken’s lawyers, Jonathan Goldman and Stephen Bergstein, called the ruling “a ringing endorsement of freedom of speech in the academy,” according to Reuters.
West Point said in a statement that it will work with Department of Justice attorneys on next steps. The case remains ongoing, with the preliminary injunction protecting Bakken and other civilian faculty from the restrictions while the litigation continues.
Sources
- Forbes — details of Bakken’s lawsuit, the February 2025 policy, and his specific examples of speech restrictions
- Reuters — Judge Seibel’s preliminary injunction ruling, her written findings, and the quoted language about cadets and classroom discussion
- Higher Ed Dive — confirmation of the two policies and Judge Seibel’s characterization of one as a “broad and standardless intrusion”
- Inside Higher Ed — background on the preliminary injunction and the judge’s finding that the preapproval policy likely violates the First Amendment
