The Ninth Circuit held that the University of Washington violated Professor Stuart Reges's First Amendment rights when administrators investigated, reprimanded, and threatened discipline over a satirical land-acknowledgment line on his syllabus. The appellate majority ruled that student offense and generalized disruption alone do not justify punishing protected academic speech and ordered the district court to reassess the university's Executive Order 31 according to its plain text. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which represented Reges, called the decision an important victory for faculty free-speech rights.
Ninth Circuit Rules University Violated Professor's Free-Speech Rights Over Parody Land Acknowledgment
The 9th Circuit Upholds a University of Washington Professor's Right to Mock 'Land Acknowledgments'
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that the University of Washington violated Professor Stuart Reges's First Amendment rights after administrators investigated, reprimanded, and threatened discipline over a parody line he placed on a course syllabus mocking the school's land-acknowledgment language.
Background
A decade ago the University of Washington adopted a formal land-acknowledgment recognizing the Coast Salish peoples. The Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering later recommended that instructors include that text on their syllabi. In response, longtime instructor Stuart Reges placed a satirical line on his CSE 143 syllabus: "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."
Campus Response and Investigation
When the statement circulated, Allen School director Magdalena Balazinska demanded its removal and instructed IT staff to remove it from Reges's online syllabus after he refused. The incident drew media attention and prompted a formal investigation. A special faculty committee later reported that the statement had a "significant impact" on Native students' morale and learning, citing, among other things, a student leave of absence and a purported dropout—claims that FIRE and the court found weak or unsupported by the record.
Lower Court Ruling and Ninth Circuit Review
U.S. District Judge John H. Chun initially sided with the university, applying the Supreme Court's Pickering balancing test and upholding a narrowed reading of the university's Executive Order 31, which bars faculty conduct "deemed unacceptable or inappropriate." Reges appealed.
Appellate Decision
A divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel reversed. Judge Daniel A. Bress (appointed by President Trump), writing for the majority and joined by Judge Milan D. Smith Jr. (a George W. Bush appointee), held that student discomfort and offense—standing alone—do not justify disciplining a public university professor for protected academic speech. The court faulted the district court for giving excessive weight to asserted disruption and instructed the lower court to assess Executive Order 31's constitutionality based on its plain text, rather than the limiting construction previously applied.
"A public university investigated, reprimanded, and threatened to discipline a professor for contentious statements he made in a class syllabus ... Student discomfort with a professor's views can prompt discussion and disapproval. But this discomfort is not grounds for the university retaliating against the professor."
— Judge Daniel A. Bress
Judge Sidney R. Thomas (a Clinton appointee) dissented, arguing the disruption to Native students' learning justified limiting Reges's speech and that the district court's limiting construction of Executive Order 31 was permissible.
Claims, Evidence, and Findings
Reges alleged viewpoint discrimination and retaliation, and he challenged Executive Order 31 as vague and overbroad. The majority found the university's evidence of disruption thin: one student who took a leave of absence was not enrolled in Reges's course and cited multiple non-speech-related factors; the alleged dropped-out student appears not to exist; and a wave of student transfers to other sections lacked a documented explanation tied directly to the syllabus line.
Reactions and Implications
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) represented Reges and hailed the decision as a major win for faculty free speech. FIRE lawyers argued the ruling reinforces academic freedom by protecting controversial expression in public universities, even when it offends members of the campus community. The court's guidance that Executive Order 31 must be evaluated as written may prompt the university to revise or clarify that policy.
Legal experts say the ruling underscores a persistent tension in higher education: protecting free expression while addressing the harm and disruption speech can cause. The Ninth Circuit majority emphasized that exposure to disagreeable or distressing viewpoints is often part of a robust educational environment and does not, by itself, justify punishment.
What's Next
The case returns to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Ninth Circuit's instructions on both the First Amendment claims and the proper analysis of Executive Order 31. The ruling will be closely watched by universities, faculty, and free-speech advocates as it clarifies the limits of disciplinary action for classroom and syllabus expression.
