Full Breakdown
Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Professor's Free Speech Rights at University of Washington
12/20/2025, 7:15:06 AM
Court Ruling on Free Speech Violation
On December 8, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the University of Washington (UW) violated the First Amendment rights of Professor Stuart Reges. The court's decision came after Reges faced disciplinary actions for parodying the university's land acknowledgment statement in his Computer Programming II class syllabus. In January 2022, instead of using the official land acknowledgment, Reges wrote, "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." This statement referenced John Locke's labor theory of property, which posits that ownership derives from the improvement of land.
The court found that UW's actions—investigating Reges, reprimanding him, and threatening further discipline—constituted unlawful retaliation against him for expressing his views. Judge Daniel Bress, writing for the majority, emphasized that discomfort among students regarding a professor's views does not justify retaliatory actions by the university.
Background of the Case
The controversy began in September 2020 when UW officials encouraged faculty to include a land acknowledgment statement in their syllabi. Reges, who has taught at UW for 39 years, expressed his dissent through satire, which led to a formal complaint against him. Following his parody, university administrators created a competing course section to allow students to avoid his class and initiated a disciplinary investigation.
Reges filed a lawsuit in July 2022, asserting that UW's actions infringed upon his rights to free speech and academic freedom. The Ninth Circuit's ruling reversed a lower court's decision that had initially favored the university.
Official Statements & Responses
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which represented Reges, hailed the ruling as a significant victory for academic freedom. FIRE attorney Gabe Walters stated, "Today’s opinion is a resounding victory for Professor Stuart Reges and the First Amendment rights of public university faculty." Reges himself remarked, "Land acknowledgments are performative acts of conformity," and expressed hope that his victory would encourage others to advocate for free expression on college campuses.
In response, a spokesperson for the University of Washington indicated that the institution is evaluating the court's decision and considering its next steps, maintaining that it acted appropriately to protect students.
Criticism & Opposition
Critics of Reges's parody argue that it undermines the intent of land acknowledgments, which are meant to recognize and honor Native American tribes as the original inhabitants of the land. They contend that such statements are essential for fostering awareness and respect for Indigenous peoples and their histories.
What's Next
The Ninth Circuit's ruling sends the case back to the lower court to determine appropriate relief for Reges. The outcome may have broader implications for academic freedom and the extent to which universities can regulate faculty speech on contentious issues.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Student discomfort with a professor’s views can prompt discussion and disapproval. But this discomfort is not grounds for the university retaliating against the professor.” — Judge Daniel Bress, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- “Today’s opinion recognizes that sometimes, ‘exposure to views that distress and offend is a form of education unto itself,’” — Will Creeley, FIRE Legal Director
