Overview
- The panel reversed the district court and ordered summary judgment for Stuart Reges on First Amendment retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, sending the case back to set appropriate relief.
- The court held that Reges’s syllabus statement was protected academic and political speech rather than government speech.
- The university’s investigation, reprimand, withholding of a merit raise, and threats of further discipline qualified as adverse employment actions, the majority concluded.
- Judges rejected UW’s disruption rationale as largely audience hostility, warning against a heckler’s veto in an academic setting, while Judge Sidney R. Thomas dissented in part citing obligations to Native students.
- The ruling reopens a facial challenge to UW’s Executive Order 31 as potentially overbroad; FIRE, which represents Reges, praised the outcome, and UW said it is considering next steps.