The people affected are not all brown people, so even if I held that low a view of the Supreme Court, no I would not bet on that.

Sitting on it until 2030? Well... it won't be the Supreme Court sitting on it until 2030. It will be:

- You can't go to court (usually) on a hypothetical. You usually need someone who has been actually affected. That can't happen until the law actually takes effect (September).

- Then you need a court case, in federal court (probably, since it's a first amendment argument). That has to reach completion, which can take a year or three.

- Then you need an appeal to the district court, and for that appeal to be accepted, and for that court case to run to completion. I have less of a feel for how long that takes, but I would guess at least half a year, maybe longer.

- Then you need an appeal to the Supreme Court, and for it to be accepted, and for the Supreme Court to hear the case and decide. That can take a year.

So, yeah, you're not going to see a final resolution until 2030 or so. That's not because the Supreme Court is sitting on it, though - at least, not most of it.

▲

hn_acker 2 days ago | parent [-]

> You can't go to court (usually) on a hypothetical. You usually need someone who has been actually affected. That can't happen until the law actually takes effect (September).

I think a Texas college or a student of one could bring a facial challenge to this law before it goes into effect. The following two excerpts of S.B. 2972 [1] (the second one consisting of spliced fragments) should be enough to demonstrate that the law would inevitably, not hypothetically, restrict a student's freedom of speech:

> "Expressive activities" means any speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by Section 8, Article I, Texas Constitution

`Each institution of higher education shall adopt a policy detailing... rights and responsibilities regarding expressive activities at the institution. The policy must... prohibit... engaging in expressive activities on campus between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m.`

[1] https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB2972/2025

	▲	AnimalMuppet 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Oh, I agree that it's blatantly unconstitutional. I'm just not sure that a court will accept a facial challenge. Once someone's been arrested, though, a court is going to have a hard time turning it away. In the ideal world, there would be a facial challenge and a temporary restraining order on implementation of the law, pending the challenge being finally decided. I'm just not sure that it will happen that way (or that quickly).