A federal appeals court said the University of Washington violated a professor’s First Amendment rights—and the university just paid $600,000 and agreed to stop policing his syllabus over it.
Story Highlights
- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled the university retaliated against the professor’s protected speech.
- The professor’s parody of a land acknowledgment was treated as his own speech on a public issue, not university speech.
- The University of Washington settled for $600,000 and agreed not to remove the statement from current or future syllabi.
- The case began with a 2022 lawsuit alleging punishment for the parody and raised concerns about vague speech rules.
Appeals Court Finds Free Speech Violation by University of Washington
On December 19, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that University of Washington officials violated computer science professor Stuart Reges’s First Amendment rights. The court said the university retaliated after he posted a parody land acknowledgment on his class syllabus. The panel wrote that he spoke as a professor on a matter of public concern, not for the institution. That ruling reversed a lower court and sent the case forward on clear constitutional grounds.
On May 14, 2026, the Ninth Circuit released a later version of its opinion that underscored the same core points. The court emphasized that the syllabus statement was faculty speech and that the law gives special protection to academic discussion in public universities. The decision rejected the idea that the university could treat his words as its own. That distinction matters because it blocks administrators from punishing disfavored viewpoints under the label of institutional control.
What the Professor Wrote and Why It Triggered Punishment
Reges’s syllabus included this line: “I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.” The record states he intended this as a parody of university land acknowledgments. Administrators responded with an investigation, a reprimand, and threats of discipline, according to litigation summaries and reporting cited by the court’s analysis.
After complaints, the university removed his syllabus from a course website and created an alternate section so students could avoid his class, according to campus speech trackers. The response showed how fast a single line on a syllabus can trigger a large administrative process. This kind of overreach is a common flashpoint in campus speech disputes. The appeals court’s ruling signaled that such actions can cross a constitutional line at public institutions.
Settlement Ends Case and Limits Future Retaliation
On September 3, 2026, the University of Washington agreed to pay $600,000 to resolve the dispute. The settlement also said the university would not remove the parody statement from current or future syllabi and would not take further action against Reges for including it. The size of the payout reflects the legal leverage created by the appeals court’s finding of retaliation and protects the professor’s right to keep the statement.
Is there a lawyer in the house? ⚖️
UW just wrote a $600,000 check and promised to leave the parody on the syllabus. That is the institution buying peace. It is not a judgment against the people who opened the investigation, built the shadow sections, and sat on the reprimand.…
— Durwin Lloyd, ND (ret) (@LloydDurwin) September 4, 2026
The case began with a July 2022 lawsuit filed with help from a civil-liberties group, after the university punished Reges for the syllabus parody. The appellate win revived his broader challenge to vague policies that allowed discipline for speech called “unacceptable or inappropriate.” That policy landscape often gives administrators wide power to police tone and viewpoint. The resolution here narrows that power by tying it back to First Amendment limits at public schools.
Why This Matters Beyond One Campus
This ruling joins a growing set of cases that define the line between faculty speech and institutional control at public universities. Courts have warned that public schools cannot invite debate on controversial topics and then punish professors who disagree with official messaging. Land acknowledgments have become common, and so have disputes over whether faculty must echo them. The Ninth Circuit’s decision clarifies that professors can question such practices without losing their rights.
What Readers Across the Spectrum See in This Outcome
Conservatives see a check on what they view as forced campus orthodoxy. Liberals who care about civil liberties see a defense of dissent against bureaucratic pressure. Many in the middle see another example of officials spending public money to settle a dispute that careful policy writing could have avoided. The shared concern is simple: powerful institutions should not punish lawful speech. The Constitution still draws that line, and the court said the university crossed it.
Sources:
fire.org, insidehighered.com, nypost.com, washingtontimes.com, pacificlegal.org
