Amicus Brief: Reges v. Cauce

After Professor Stuart Reges included a satirical land acknowledgement in the syllabus for a course he taught at the University of Washington, the school punished him by creating a “shadow section” (identical in subject matter and time) of his class, withholding his pay, and launching an invasive investigation that remains ongoing. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression is representing Reges in a lawsuit that challenges the investigation and punishment as viewpoint discriminatory and the policy that forbids “unacceptable” or “inappropriate” speech as unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.

The district court granted summary judgment to the university on Reges’s as-applied free speech claims and dismissed his related facial claims. Reges is now appealing to the Ninth Circuit. The outcome of this case has implications for the powers public academic institutions will have to recommend faculty adopt and promote preferred stances on political topics and to punish those who offer unpopular views. The Manhattan Institute filed a brief supporting Reges that highlights the district court’s error is determining that Reges had not suffered retaliation because he remains employed. We argue that the lower court failed to consider both the seriousness of the university’s actions and the strength of Prof. Reges’s speech rights.

Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow and director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute. Follow him on Twitter here.

Tim Rosenberger is a legal fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Special thanks to law school associate Noam Josse.

Photo: Merrill Images / Corbis Documentary via Getty Images