Background
Stuart Reges, a teaching professor at the University of Washington, included a parody statement in his computer science course syllabus mocking the university’s recommended indigenous land acknowledgment. The statement drew complaints from students and faculty, leading to a disciplinary investigation, a reprimand, and a threat of further discipline. The district court granted summary judgment to the university officials, finding that the university’s interest in mitigating disruption outweighed the professor’s speech rights.
The court’s reasoning
The panel held that Reges’s speech was protected because it related to scholarship and teaching, falling outside the scope of Garcetti v. Ceballos. The court found that Reges spoke in his own capacity as a professor on a matter of public concern. Applying the Pickering balancing test, the court determined that the university did not meet its burden to show that its legitimate interests outweighed Reges’s First Amendment interests. The court noted that the alleged disruption suffered from problems of proof and that student discomfort with controversial academic speech does not outweigh First Amendment interests. The court also held that the district court erred in dismissing Reges’s facial challenge to the university’s Nondiscrimination and Affirmative Action policy.
We hold that the university’s actions toward the professor violated his First Amendment rights.
Reges v. Cauce, 162 F.4th 979 (9th Cir. 2025) (amended 2026)
The dissent
The disruption Reges’s speech caused to Native students’ learning outweighed his own First Amendment interests.
Sidney R. Thomas
What it means going forward
The case is remanded for the district court to determine appropriate relief on the retaliation and viewpoint discrimination claims and to decide whether the university’s policy is unconstitutional as applied.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download