David McDonald v. Trustees of Indiana University: Date Argued: February 19th, 2026; Docket Number: 25-2366

Case Summary:In the case of David McDonald v. Trustees of Indiana University (Docket No. 25-2366), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on February 19, 2026, the relevant facts are as follows:The litigation is a constitutional challenge brought by several tenured faculty members, including lead plaintiff David McDonald, an associate professor at Indiana University Bloomington, against the Trustees of Indiana University and Purdue University.The core factual dispute centers on the enforcement of Indiana Senate Enrolled Act 202 (SEA 202), a state law effective July 1, 2024, which mandates that public universities implement policies to promote "intellectual diversity" and "free inquiry" among faculty.The statute specifically requires that faculty members be denied tenure or promotion if they are deemed "unlikely to foster a culture of free inquiry" or "unlikely to expose students to scholarly works from a variety of political or ideological frameworks."The factual record includes a new "post-tenure review" process established by the Act, requiring tenured professors to undergo formal re-evaluation every five years to ensure they are meeting these new ideological diversity standards.Plaintiffs allege that the law is unconstitutionally vague and creates a "chilling effect" on academic freedom, as the statute does not define key terms like "intellectual diversity," leaving faculty unable to discern what pedagogical choices might lead to disciplinary action, including termination.In July 2025, the district court dismissed the lawsuit on procedural grounds, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had not yet suffered a concrete injury, such as a formal reprimand or denial of promotion, under the new law.The appeal, docketed as 25-2366, challenges that dismissal, with the plaintiffs arguing that the "chilling" of their classroom speech and the immediate requirement to alter their curricula to comply with the law constitute an "injury-in-fact" sufficient for federal court jurisdiction.The factual background is further complicated by the lead plaintiff’s personal history; David McDonald was previously arrested and temporarily banned from campus during 2024 protests, an event he cites as evidence of the university administration's willingness to use punitive measures against faculty for expressive activity.During the oral arguments on February 19, 2026, the Seventh Circuit panel focused on whether the plaintiffs' fear of future discipline is "objectively reasonable" and whether the state’s interest in regulating the curriculum of public employees overrides the First Amendment rights of university professors.