A federal appeals court has ruled that the University of Washington (UW) violated a professor’s First Amendment rights by punishing him for including a satirical land acknowledgment in his course syllabus. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision and remanded the case to determine appropriate relief, reinforcing protections for academic free speech.
Professor Stuart Reges, a non-tenured teaching professor of computer science at UW, challenged university actions after he mocked the institution’s land acknowledgment practice by writing an alternative statement in his syllabus in January 2022. The official land acknowledgment encouraged faculty to include language recognizing that the campus sits on traditional Coast Salish tribal lands. Reges instead referenced John Locke’s labor theory of property to argue the indigenous claim to the land was minimal.
Following complaints from students, UW administrators condemned Reges’s statement as offensive, ordered its removal from the online syllabus, and opened an investigation that could have led to discipline or termination. The university also created an alternative section of Reges’s class so students uncomfortable with his position could enroll elsewhere. Reges filed his First Amendment lawsuit in July 2022, alleging retaliation and viewpoint discrimination.
In its Dec. 19, 2025 decision, the Ninth Circuit held that the lower court erred in granting summary judgment to the university on Reges’s retaliation claim. The court ruled that his syllabus statement was protected speech on a matter of public concern and that UW retaliated against him for the views he expressed. The panel emphasized that student discomfort with a professor’s viewpoint does not justify retaliation or punishment by public institutions.
Two of the three judges sided with the majority opinion written by Judge Daniel Bress, a Trump appointee, asserting that academic freedom and political expression are foundational to higher education. The panel also noted that debate and disagreement are hallmarks of an academic environment, and that claims of campus disruption must be weighed carefully against constitutional rights.
UW defended its actions, maintaining responsibility to protect students and stating the decision is under review. The university noted that Reges has continued teaching and retained his faculty position throughout the litigation.
Reges’s legal team from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) described the ruling as a significant victory for faculty free speech. They argued that public universities cannot compel professors to echo institutional preferences under threat of discipline. The judges remanded the case to the district court to determine what remedies are appropriate.
The case reflects broader tensions on college campuses over free speech, diversity and inclusion initiatives, and the limits of administrative authority in academic settings. It may influence future disputes involving faculty speech and campus policies.
