Login
Home  |  Legal Resources  |  Publications

Cases & Developments

FILTERS

Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments

  • Date:

    AAUP New Report: Academic Freedom and Collective Bargaining (Mar. 18, 2026) 

    The American Association of University Professors’ Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom and the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions at Hunter College published a new report analyzing and comparing academic freedom provisions included in collective bargaining agreements from 45 higher education institutions. The report calls for the development of a nationwide training program for higher education on the principles of academic freedom set forth in the 1940 Statement and on incorporating those principles into collective bargaining agreements.  

    Topics:

    Academic Freedom & Employee Speech | Collective Bargaining | Faculty & Staff

  • Date:

    Kershnar v. Kolison, Jr., et al. (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2026)

    Opinion and Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a philosophy professor at the State University of New York at Fredonia (SUNY), sued the university’s president and provost, alleging retaliation, viewpoint discrimination, and prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment, after he was barred from teaching and banned from campus following controversial remarks he made about age-of-consent laws during a podcast appearance. The court found that, despite the offensive nature of his speech, plaintiff plausibly alleged that his statements addressed a matter of public concern and therefore were entitled to First Amendment protection. The court further found that plaintiff had plausibly alleged that the university’s order prohibiting plaintiff from contacting members of the campus community functioned as a prior restraint on his speech. Finally, the court also found that although plaintiff continued to receive his salary during the campus ban, he had sufficiently alleged retaliation, concluding that the close timing between the podcast going viral, the university president’s public condemnation of the remarks, and campus ban plausibly suggested a retaliatory motive.  

    Topics:

    Academic Freedom & Employee Speech | Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Retaliation

  • Date:

    Johnson v. Fliger, et al. (E.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2026)

    Order Granting in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a history professor at Bakersfield Community College, brought First Amendment facial and as-applied challenges to Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) regulations governing the California Community College system, as well as a California Education Code provision permitting discipline for violations of those regulations. While the court rejected plaintiff’s facial challenge to the DEIA regulations, it found that plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of his as-applied viewpoint discrimination and compelled speech claims. In granting plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the court found that defendants’ general interest in enforcing the DEIA regulations did not outweigh plaintiff’s First Amendment right not to be sanctioned for expressing a contrary viewpoint on DEIA matters and not to be compelled to speak in support of the DEIA principles. The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and enjoined defendants from investigating, disciplining, or terminating plaintiff based on his social or political speech in his teaching or scholarship, or in his capacity as a private citizen. However, the court clarified that the injunction would not extend to plaintiff’s speech in his official capacity on college committees or to the requirement that he complete DEIA training as a condition of serving on faculty screening committees.  

    Topics:

    Academic Freedom & Employee Speech | Constitutional Issues | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech

  • Date:

    McCoul v. The Texas A&M University System, et al., (S.D. Tex. Feb. 4, 2026)

    Complaint for Declaratory Relief and Damages. Plaintiff, a former senior lecturer in English Literature for Texas A&M University, sued the university and several campus officials alleging violation of her First Amendment and Due Process rights after the university terminated her for “failing to modify her course content” to exclude content related to gender identity. Plaintiff claims that the university’s purported reason for her termination was pretextual because she was never told she was required to modify her course content and was, in fact, due to political backlash that followed a classroom video recording of a student objecting to the course content, which went viral. Plaintiff further claims that the university violated her due process rights when it failed to follow its own policies for dismissal, which required the university to provide notice of the charges, an opportunity to respond, and a hearing. She also alleges her rights were violated when the university ignored findings of the university’s Academic Freedom Council, which determined she “was fired for the content of her class,” and findings of its faculty appeals hearing body, which held the university had not demonstrated her dismal was for good cause.

    Topics:

    Academic Freedom & Employee Speech | Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech

  • Date:

    Levy v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ. & A&M Coll. (La. App. Nov. 7, 2025)

    Opinion Vacating Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a tenured professor at Louisiana State University School of Law, sued the university seeking reinstatement to his teaching duties and an injunction blocking the university from infringing on his free speech or due process rights, after he was placed on paid administrative leave following vulgar and inappropriate classroom statements regarding the Governor of Louisiana and President of the United States. After the trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the university appealed arguing that plaintiff’s claims were premature. Finding that plaintiff’s removal from the classroom was an “interim decision” that did not “disturb [his] tenure rights, employment, or pay,” the court concluded there was “no deprivation to be enjoined.” Accordingly, the court vacated the preliminary injunction and dismissed plaintiff’s claims without prejudice.

    Topics:

    Academic Freedom & Employee Speech | Employee Discipline & Due Process | Faculty & Staff | Tenure

  • Date:

    Hook v. Rav, et al., (D.S.D. Sep. 24, 2025)

    Opinion and Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff, a tenured professor at the University of South Dakota, brought a First Amendment retaliation claim against the President of the Board of Regents and other individual defendants after he received notice of an intent to terminate his contract following his online comments about the death of Charlie Kirk. The court found that because plaintiff was at home, off work, and on his private Facebook page, he “spoke as a citizen and his speech was on a matter of public concern.” Additionally, the court found that “defendants [] failed to put on evidence that [plaintiff’s] speech had an adverse impact on the efficiency of the [university’s] operations.” In granting a temporary restraining order, the court held that plaintiff had a fair chance of prevailing on his claim, because “the change in his employment status would ‘chill a person of ordinary fitness’ from continuing to engage in First Amendment activity.” The court ordered the university to reinstate plaintiff’s position retroactive to the date he received the notice and required plaintiff’s position to remain in effect until the preliminary injunction hearing. 

    Topics:

    Academic Freedom & Employee Speech | Constitutional Issues | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Social Media

  • Date:

    Black Emergency Response Team v. Drummond (Okla. Sup. Ct. Jun 17, 2025) (unpub.)

    Order Responding to Certified Questions. Petitioners, a coalition of civil rights organizations and university affiliates, challenged 71 O.S. § 24-157, enacted through Oklahoma House Bill 1775, which “prohibits mandatory gender and sexual diversity training . . . [i]n relation to public colleges or universities, the law states: No enrolled student of an institution of higher education within The Oklahoma State System of Higher Education shall be required to engage in any form of mandatory gender or sexual diversity training or counseling; provided, voluntary counseling shall not be prohibited. Any orientation or requirement that presents any form of race or sex stereotyping or a bias on the basis of race or sex shall be prohibited.” Petitioners argued that the law violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by restricting classroom speech and access to ideas related to race and gender. The district court, after issuing a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of key portions of the statute on vagueness grounds, certified six questions of state law to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The court responded to the first three questions: (1) whether the Oklahoma law overstepped the Legislature’s authority to control the internal operations of public universities; (2) defining the term “requirement” in the context of the ban on mandatory content involving race or sex stereotyping; and (3) defining the term “present” as it relates to teaching on race or sex stereotyping and whether it includes all references, discussions or portrayals. The court stated “[w]e answer the first three certified questions by determining that the term ‘requirement’ in § 24-157(A)(1) pertains only to orientation requirements and does not apply to classes, courses, or curricular speech.” After the court concluded that the narrowed scope of the definition does not implicate curricular speech and thus does not infringe upon principles of academic freedom, the court stated that it “has no reason to answer the remaining certified questions” and determined that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the law. The court declined to answer the remaining certified questions related to § 24-157(B)(1), finding that interpretation of those provisions would not avoid the federal constitutional issues raised and would risk rendering an advisory opinion. The court also made note that the federal questions raised could be impacted or rendered moot by Executive order 14190 “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling” and declined to make that determination.  

    Topics:

    Academic Freedom & Employee Speech | Constitutional Issues | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech

  • Date:

    AAUP Academic Freedom and Tenure: Muhlenberg College Report (Apr. 29, 2025)

    The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) released a new report on the 2024 dismissal of Dr. Maura Finkelstein titled, “Academic Freedom and Tenure: Muhlenberg College.” The report concludes that the administration, in initially dismissing the professor, acted in violation of AAUP-supported principles and standards of academic freedom and due process. It further asserts that the administration’s actions in dismissing the professor, as well as monitoring her social media posts, “severely impaired the climate for academic freedom at Muhlenberg College.” Finally, the report alleges that the College’s equal opportunity and nondiscrimination policies did not sufficiently protect academic freedom and due process, and cautions that the professor’s experience is may not be unique, nor the last of its kind, and thus, makes several procedural recommendations and emphasizes the critical importance of sound policies and appropriate faculty oversight.  

    Topics:

    Academic Freedom & Employee Speech | Faculty & Staff

  • Date:

    Bedi v. The United States House of Representatives Committee on Education and Workforce (N.D. Ill. E.D. Apr. 9, 2025)

    Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief. Plaintiffs, Shelia Bedi and Lyn Cohn, two faculty members at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law (Pritzker), allege that defendants, the United States House of Representatives Committee on Education and Workforce (the Committee), Tim Walberg, Burgess Owens, Northwestern University, Michael Schill, and Peter Barris acted beyond their lawful authority and violated plaintiffs’ rights protected by the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs sue following defendants’ demand that Pritzker and its Bluhm Legal Clinic produce information about how they teach their students, represent their clients, and fund their work following allegations that some of plaintiffs’ clients have engaged in “Antisemitic conduct.” Plaintiffs allege that this effort is part of the federal government’s ongoing attack on academic freedom, legal professionals, and the rule of law. Plaintiffs further allege that defendants’ demands exceed their authority and have no valid legislative purpose, and they are an attempt to investigate, intimidate, and punish institutions and individuals that defendants have deemed “left-wing.” Plaintiffs specifically allege that defendants have violated their Rights to Free Speech, Freedom of Association, to Petition for Redress of Grievances, Academic Freedom, Fifth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection, Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel, and have retaliated against plaintiffs. Plaintiffs ask that the court immediately and preliminarily enjoin defendants from producing and obtaining any documents demanded in the Committee’s demand letter, declare that the demands are unconstitutional and violate the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 

    Topics:

    Academic Freedom & Employee Speech | Constitutional Issues | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Faculty & Staff | First Amendment & Free Speech | Race and National Origin Discrimination

  • Date:

    American Association of University professors Statement Against Anticipatory Obedience (Jan. 23, 2025)

    The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Statement Against Anticipatory Obedience. The AAUP issued a joint statement from the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure and the Committee on College and University Governance regarding how the new administration and many state governments appear “poised to accelerate attacks on academic freedom, shared governance, and higher education as a public good.” The Statement encourages its members that under no circumstances should an institution go further than the law demands, but cautioning that “too often, administrators do.” The Statement encourages AAUP chapters, conferences, unions, and faculty senates to (1) review handbooks and contracts to strengthen faculty rights in the areas of curricular reform and course approval; (2) review and reform policies to strengthen faculty oversight; (3) organize locally, regionally, and nationally; (4) strengthen local capacity to protect tenure and academic freedom by establishing or staffing a Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure in every chapter and state conference; and (5)   Strengthen local capacity to protect faculty governance by promoting AAUP resources on governance, including the Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, within chapters, to faculty senates, and across institutions. 

    Topics:

    Academic Freedom & Employee Speech | Faculty & Staff

NACUA Annual Conference

Join us in the Music City June 29 – July 2 to connect, learn, and lead alongside higher education attorneys shaping policy, practice, and impact nationwide together.

Register