A federal appeals court said the University of Washington violated a professor’s First Amendment rights, and the university is now paying $600,000 and backing off its speech rules.
Story Highlights
- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled UW retaliated against Professor Stuart Reges for protected speech.
- UW will pay $600,000 and allow his parody land acknowledgment to remain on current and future syllabi.
- The court said Reges spoke as a professor on a public issue, not for the university, and revived his policy challenge.
- The exact parody line criticized land acknowledgments using a “labor theory of property” argument.
Appeals Court Confirms Protected Faculty Speech
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that University of Washington leaders violated Professor Stuart Reges’s First Amendment rights when they punished him over a parody land acknowledgment on his syllabus. The court found that Reges spoke in his own capacity as a professor on a matter of public concern and not as the university’s voice, making his expression protected speech. The ruling reversed earlier decisions and set the case on track for further relief.
The Ninth Circuit later released a further opinion document in May 2026 that echoed the same core holding. The panel’s reasoning stressed that academic freedom has a special place in constitutional law at public universities. The court also revived Reges’s challenge to a vague rule that let administrators punish speech they view as “unacceptable or inappropriate,” signaling broader concerns with campus censorship power, beyond this single dispute.
Settlement Pays $600,000 And Restricts Future Retaliation
After the appellate win, the University of Washington agreed to settle. Reports say UW will pay $600,000 and allow Reges to keep the parody statement on his current and future syllabi. The settlement also bars further actions tied to that speech, such as renewed investigations, creating “shadow” course sections, or withholding future salary increases because of the statement or related complaints. The payment size shows the strong legal leverage created by the appellate ruling.
Inside Higher Ed’s coverage states the university agreed it would not force removal of the parody line and would not pursue new penalties tied to it. That confirms the practical effect of the court’s decision in the day-to-day academic setting. While the public record does not include the full settlement text, consistent reporting from multiple outlets aligns on the key terms, payment amount, and non-retaliation commitments described above.
The Parody Statement And The Campus Response
Reges’s syllabus stated: “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.” That line directly parodied the university’s preferred land acknowledgment model. Administrators opened an investigation, reprimanded him, and threatened discipline. Reports also note a competing class section was created to let students avoid his course during the dispute.
Is there a lawyer in the house? ⚖️
UW just wrote a $600,000 check and promised to leave the parody on the syllabus. That is the institution buying peace. It is not a judgment against the people who opened the investigation, built the shadow sections, and sat on the reprimand.…
— Durwin Lloyd, ND (ret) (@LloydDurwin) September 4, 2026
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which represented Reges, filed suit in 2022 after UW’s actions. The group reported that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling confirmed the university’s retaliation and that the later settlement locked in a speech-protective outcome. FIRE’s case summary stresses that public universities cannot invite faculty into public debates and then punish those who disagree with official views. The $600,000 settlement followed soon after the appeals court victory.
Why This Matters For Free Speech And Education
This case delivers a clear message to public universities: faculty can question official narratives without losing pay or facing gag rules. Courts again drew the line against administrators who try to police viewpoint in class materials. That protects robust debate, which helps students learn to test ideas rather than repeat slogans. University leaders remain free to share their own statements, but they cannot punish a professor for offering a different view on a public issue.
For many readers, land acknowledgments have become a symbol of empty politics crowding out real teaching. This ruling does not tell schools what to think. It tells them they cannot force one script while punishing dissent. That is how the First Amendment is supposed to work at public institutions. When rules are so vague that almost any disfavored opinion can be called “inappropriate,” courts will step in to guard open inquiry and common-sense limits on government power.
Key Limits And The Road Ahead
The court’s holdings speak clearly on the core issues, though the public record does not include every internal email or the full settlement document. Even so, the binding appellate decision and the settlement terms reported by multiple outlets provide a firm picture of what happened. Other campuses now face the same choice: narrow their policies to respect free speech or risk costly defeats and payouts when administrators punish protected expression in class settings.
President Trump’s administration continues to press agencies and schools to respect constitutional rights, but this case shows why courts matter too. The Constitution restrains government at every level, including state universities. When a professor’s viewpoint is punished, it chills speech across campus. This settlement and ruling restore balance, warn against bureaucratic overreach, and remind schools that education needs open debate, not enforced orthodoxy.
Sources:
fire.org, nypost.com, washingtontimes.com, cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov
