FILTERS



Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments


  • 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 retaliationconcluding 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 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 citizenHowever, 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