Academic Freedom and Faculty Discipline: Ninth Circuit Clarifies First Amendment Limits in Reges v. Cauce
In Reges v. Cauce, decided on December 19, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the limits of a public university’s authority to investigate and discipline faculty members for classroom-related speech. The court held that the University of Washington violated a tenured computer science and engineering professor’s First Amendment rights when it investigated and reprimanded him for syllabus language expressing a controversial viewpoint on a matter of public concern. The decision reinforces longstanding constitutional protections for academic freedom and clarifies how First Amendment retaliation claims are analyzed in the higher-education employment context.
The case arose from a dispute over Professor Stuart Reges’ syllabus statement parodying the university’s recommended land acknowledgment. A land acknowledgment is a statement recognizing that an institution occupies land historically inhabited or stewarded by Indigenous peoples.
In recent years, land acknowledgments have become common at public universities, where they may appear at the start of events, in official communications, or, as here, in recommended syllabus language. Institutions often present them as expressions of respect or inclusion, though they are not legally required.
The practice has also generated debate. Supporters view land acknowledgments as a meaningful step toward historical recognition and reconciliation. Critics argue that they can be symbolic rather than substantive, politically charged, or compelled speech when institutions pressure faculty or employees to adopt them. That tension, particularly when public employers are involved, raises constitutional questions under the First Amendment.
Here, the university’s suggested land acknowledgment read, “The University of Washington acknowledges the Coast Salish people of this land, the land which touches the shared waters of all tribes and bands within the Suquamish, Tulalip, and Muckleshoot nations.”
In his course syllabus, Professor Reges included language criticising institutional land acknowledgment practices, framing them as political speech rather than neutral expressions of respect. He included a parody land acknowledgment in his syllabus that read, ““I acknowledge that 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.”
Several students complained that the statement was offensive and created a hostile learning environment. Further, Reges has publicly commented on sensitive issues throughout his career. For example, he has spoken with local and national media about his identity and mental health as a gay man. In 2018, Reges wrote an article entitled “Why Women Don’t Code,” which led a group of students to petition against the renewal of his contract.
In response, the university initiated a months-long investigation, issued a formal reprimand, warned Professor Reges about future discipline, and temporarily withheld merit-based pay.
The university argued that the professor’s syllabus constituted unprotected employee speech under Garcetti v. Ceballos or, alternatively, government speech. The Ninth Circuit rejected both arguments. Relying on its prior decision in Demers v. Austin, the court reaffirmed that speech related to scholarship or teaching at a public university falls outside Garcetti and is instead analyzed under the Pickering balancing framework. The court emphasized that faculty retain substantial control over course syllabi and that such documents fall squarely within the core of protected academic speech.
The court further concluded that the syllabus language addressed a matter of public concern. Debates over land acknowledgments, institutional speech, and the role of universities in political discourse are matters of ongoing public discussion. The fact that the professor’s views were provocative or unpopular did not remove them from constitutional protection.
Turning to adverse action, the Ninth Circuit held that the university’s conduct went beyond trivial oversight. A prolonged investigation, formal reprimand, threat of future discipline, and temporary loss of merit pay were sufficient to deter a reasonable faculty member from engaging in protected speech. The court rejected the notion that only termination or demotion qualifies as actionable retaliation.
Applying the Pickering balancing test, the court held that the university failed to demonstrate that its operational interests outweighed the professor’s First Amendment rights. Student discomfort or offense, standing alone, was insufficient. The court cautioned that allowing student reactions to dictate permissible faculty speech would effectively create a “heckler’s veto,” incompatible with the mission of higher education. Alleged disruptions cited by the university, such as student complaints or course transfers, were either unsupported by the record or reflected disagreement with the professor’s viewpoint rather than genuine interference with university operations.
Because the evidence showed the university acted specifically because of the views expressed, the court also found impermissible viewpoint discrimination. As a result, the Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment for the university and directed entry of summary judgment in favor of the professor on his First Amendment retaliation and viewpoint discrimination claims.
The court also revived the professor’s facial challenge to the university’s nondiscrimination policy, which authorized discipline for conduct deemed “unacceptable” or “inappropriate” even if not unlawful. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court improperly narrowed the policy’s scope and that its broad language raised serious concerns of overbreadth and vagueness. The case was remanded for further proceedings on that claim.
Reges v. Cauce serves as an important reminder that public universities remain bound by constitutional limits when responding to controversial academic speech. While institutions have legitimate interests in maintaining an effective learning environment, those interests do not permit discipline based solely on offense, disagreement, or political discomfort. Broad conduct or civility policies that reach protected academic expression continue to face significant constitutional risk, particularly when enforced against faculty speech on matters of public concern.