<p>This paper examines the shift in authority from the academic profession to state governments in U.S. public higher education. Using a qualitative case study of the controversial passage of Indiana’s Senate Enrolled Act 202 (SEA 202), we examine how this change in governance was justified. Through review of legislative records, media reports, and statements from faculty, university leaders, and policymakers, we explore how different actors explained the purpose and control of higher education. Findings show that supporters and opponents of SEA 202 invoked the same concepts—academic freedom, shared governance, and intellectual diversity—but assigned them very different meanings to promote competing ideas of governance. Proponents described partisan state control as a way to fix a faculty profession seen as ideologically dominated, while opponents defended professional authority as a vital safeguard against political interference in higher education’s public and private roles. These findings suggest that while SEA 202’s passage illustrates the formal authority of states over public higher education, postliberal governance reforms also rely on reinterpreting professional norms. This creates limited but significant pathways for academic professionals to continue defending their role in serving the public.</p>