The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has declined to revisit a landmark decision involving the First Amendment rights of a University of Washington (UW) computer science professor, Stuart Reges. The court’s refusal to grant an en banc rehearing solidifies a prior ruling that found the university’s disciplinary actions against Reges—taken after he expressed a dissenting view on the institution’s land acknowledgment policy—likely violated his constitutional right to free speech. This decision marks a significant development in the ongoing legal discourse surrounding academic freedom, compelled speech, and the limits of university authority over faculty expression.
The case, which has drawn national attention from legal scholars and civil liberties advocates, centers on the intersection of institutional diversity initiatives and individual faculty dissent. By declining to rehear the case, the Ninth Circuit has left in place a precedent that protects public university professors when they voice unpopular or provocative opinions on matters of public concern, even when those opinions run counter to official university messaging.
The Genesis of the Dispute: Land Acknowledgments and Dissent
The conflict began in early 2022 at the University of Washington’s Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering. Like many academic institutions across North America, the University of Washington had adopted a "land acknowledgment" statement. These statements are formal recognitions of the Indigenous tribes who historically inhabited the land where the university now stands.
The university’s official recommended statement acknowledged that the campus sits on the land of the Coast Salish peoples. Specifically, the university suggested that faculty include a statement in their syllabi such as: "The University of Washington acknowledges the Coast Salish peoples of this land, the land which touches the shared waters of all tribes and bands within the Suquamish, Tulalip and Muckleshoot nations."
Stuart Reges, a long-time faculty member known for challenging campus orthodoxies, decided to include his own version of a land acknowledgment in his syllabus for a Winter 2022 course. Reges’s version read: "I acknowledge that by the right of conquest, the land occupied by the University of Washington was rightfully taken from the Coast Salish people."
Reges argued that his statement was a satirical and philosophical critique of the university’s policy, which he viewed as a form of "performative wokeness" and "social signaling." He maintained that if the university encouraged the use of land acknowledgments to foster discussion about history and justice, he should be free to offer a different historical and legal interpretation of those same events.
University Response and Legal Escalation
The University of Washington administration did not view Reges’s syllabus entry as protected academic expression. University officials argued that the "right of conquest" statement was offensive, created a hostile learning environment, and disrupted the educational mission of the Allen School.
Following student complaints, the university took several disciplinary steps. They forcibly removed the statement from his online syllabus and created a "shadow" section of his course taught by another instructor, allowing students to transfer out of Reges’s class if they felt uncomfortable. Furthermore, the university launched a formal investigation to determine if Reges had violated the school’s non-discrimination and harassment policies.
In July 2022, represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), Reges filed a federal lawsuit against university officials. He alleged that the school’s actions constituted viewpoint discrimination and retaliation for protected speech. He sought an injunction to stop the university’s disciplinary proceedings and a declaration that his First Amendment rights had been violated.
Chronology of the Case
The legal trajectory of Reges v. Cauce reflects the complex nature of First Amendment litigation in the 21st-century academic environment:
- January 2022: Reges includes his "right of conquest" statement in his syllabus.
- February 2022: UW administrators remove the statement and initiate a disciplinary investigation.
- July 2022: Reges files a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
- September 2023: The District Court issues a mixed ruling, but largely allows the case to proceed, noting that Reges had a plausible claim that the university retaliated against him for his speech.
- February 2024: A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rules in favor of Reges, finding that the university’s actions—specifically the investigation and the creation of a shadow class—could reasonably be seen as a violation of his First Amendment rights.
- May 2026: The Ninth Circuit officially denies the University of Washington’s petition for a rehearing en banc, meaning the full court will not reconsider the panel’s decision.
Legal Analysis: The Pickering-Connick Test and Academic Freedom
The Ninth Circuit’s decision rests on the application of the Pickering-Connick test, a legal framework used to determine when the speech of public employees is protected. Under this test, the court must first determine if the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. If so, the court then balances the employee’s right to speak against the government employer’s interest in maintaining an efficient and non-disruptive workplace.
In the case of Reges, the court found that his syllabus statement addressed a matter of significant public concern: the historical treatment of Indigenous peoples and the validity of land acknowledgments. The court further determined that Reges was not speaking as a "mouthpiece" for the university, but was expressing his own academic and philosophical viewpoint.
Critically, the court rejected the university’s argument that Reges’s speech was so disruptive that it justified disciplinary action. While the university claimed the statement caused "harm," the court noted that the First Amendment does not contain an "offense" exception. To justify suppressing faculty speech, a university must show actual, substantial disruption to its operations, rather than a mere disagreement with the content of the speech.
Supporting Data: The Rise of Land Acknowledgments and Campus Speech Trends
The Reges case is situated within a broader national trend. According to data from the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and various academic surveys, land acknowledgments became increasingly common between 2018 and 2023. By 2022, an estimated 45% of top-tier research universities in the United States had some form of official land acknowledgment statement or guidance for faculty.
Simultaneously, campus free speech disputes have surged. Data from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) indicates that the number of "scholar sanctions"—instances where faculty are disciplined for their speech or research—has risen significantly over the last decade. Between 2014 and 2023, FIRE documented over 1,000 such incidents across U.S. campuses. The Ninth Circuit’s refusal to revisit the Reges ruling serves as a check on this trend, suggesting that public institutions must tolerate dissenting faculty voices even when they challenge institutional "best practices."
Official Responses and Reactions
The Ninth Circuit’s refusal to rehear the case has drawn sharp reactions from both sides of the debate.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE):
In a statement following the court’s order, FIRE legal director Will Creeley hailed the decision as a victory for academic freedom. "This is a win for every professor who refuses to be a rubber stamp for university-sanctioned orthodoxy," Creeley said. "The Ninth Circuit has sent a clear message: public universities cannot punish faculty members simply because their views on social or political issues are unpopular or provocative."
University of Washington Spokesperson:
The university expressed disappointment in the court’s decision but maintained that its primary goal was to ensure an inclusive environment for all students. "While we respect the judicial process, we continue to believe that our actions were necessary to protect the learning environment from speech that many students found profoundly exclusionary and harassing," a university representative stated. The school indicated it is reviewing its options, though a Supreme Court appeal is the only remaining avenue for further review.
Indigenous Advocacy Groups:
Some representatives of Indigenous communities have expressed concern that the ruling validates rhetoric that diminishes historical trauma. "Land acknowledgments are meant to be a step toward reconciliation," said a spokesperson for a regional tribal coalition. "Using that platform to mock the history of conquest is not just a matter of free speech; it’s a matter of basic respect and historical accuracy."
Broader Impact and Implications for Higher Education
The refusal of the Ninth Circuit to revisit this case has several far-reaching implications for public universities within its jurisdiction, which includes California, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, and several other Western states.
1. Limits on Compelled Speech
The ruling reinforces the principle that public universities cannot compel faculty to adopt specific social or political stances. While the university did not strictly require the land acknowledgment, its reaction to Reges’s dissenting version created what the court viewed as a "compelled speech" environment through the threat of discipline.
2. The Definition of "Disruption"
The case clarifies that "disruption" in the context of university speech must be more than student discomfort or offense. For an administration to legally silence a professor, they must demonstrate that the speech fundamentally prevents the university from functioning or prevents students from receiving an education.
3. Protection for "Uncivil" Speech
Reges’s statement was intentionally provocative. By protecting it, the court suggests that "civility" codes cannot be used as a pretext for silencing dissent. In an academic setting, the pursuit of truth often involves sharp disagreement and the challenging of prevailing norms.
4. Future of Land Acknowledgments
Universities may now be more cautious in how they implement land acknowledgments and other DEI-related (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies. If faculty members are legally permitted to offer counter-narratives or critiques of these policies within their course materials, institutions may pivot toward making such statements strictly voluntary or purely administrative, rather than part of the instructional syllabus.
Conclusion
The Ninth Circuit’s decision not to revisit the Stuart Reges case marks a definitive moment for First Amendment protections in higher education. It underscores the reality that public universities, as "marketplaces of ideas," must remain open to a wide spectrum of thought, even when that thought is viewed as offensive or counter-productive by the administration.
As Stuart Reges continues his tenure at the University of Washington, the legal precedent set by his challenge will likely serve as a shield for other faculty members who find themselves at odds with institutional mandates. The case stands as a reminder that in the American legal system, the right to dissent remains a cornerstone of the academic experience, ensuring that the boundaries of debate are set by the Constitution rather than by administrative consensus.
