MSU Trustee Sues Board Over Ethics Code

Michael Balow claims the university's revised code of ethics violates First Amendment rights.

Updated on Oct. 28, 2026 in Higher Education

Live Poll

Should elected board members be allowed to publicly criticize the decisions of their institution?

Michigan State University trustee Michael Balow filed a federal lawsuit against the school's board of trustees over a recently revised code of ethics. Balow argues the new requirements, which demand adherence to board decisions and restrict public statements, violate his First Amendment rights.

Why it matters

The dispute centers on the balance between university governance and the ability of individual trustees to provide independent oversight. Balow contends the lawsuit is necessary to ensure transparent administrative accountability at the East Lansing institution.

The university's board of trustees manages operations for members serving eight-year terms, with Balow currently two years into his tenure. The school notably withheld documents regarding a $100 million private-equity investment in the athletics program.

The players

Michael Balow

He is a Michigan State University trustee who is two years into his eight-year term.

Michigan State University Board of Trustees

This governing body is responsible for university oversight and maintains the code of ethics for its members.

The details

The board of trustees updated its code to forbid members from sharing information deemed inaccurate or misleading and to require support for majority votes. After Balow refused to sign, the board revoked his credentials for specific events and censured his access to state policy conferences.

The board chair accused Balow of undermining the administration during Spring 2026.
Trustee Michael Balow filed the lawsuit in federal court on October 28, 2026.

Culture Shift

This conflict reflects a broader national trend of universities tightening governance to control institutional messaging. It marks a departure from traditional board dynamics by prioritizing administrative unity over the independent oversight role historically held by individual trustees.

The legal battle may lead to greater public scrutiny of university financial decisions, such as the $100 million investment in athletics. Residents may see changes in how the board operates or handles internal disagreements during future public sessions.

The takeaway

Transparency in university leadership remains a point of contention for public institutions nationwide. Trustees often face difficult choices when balancing administrative loyalty against their duty to provide public oversight.