Identity of Speakers
-
Richard Lowery
Faculty/Staff
OtherAssociate Professor of Finance
Additional Information
-
Incident Nature:
Lawsuit
Social media
Other
-
Incident Political Orientation:
Right wing -
Incident Responses:
Litigation
-
Incident Status:
In litigation Federal District Court
In litigation Federal Court of Appeals
Dismissed
Appealed
- Did not involve Speech Codes
Summary
A University of Texas at Austin finance professor, Richard Lowery, filed a federal lawsuit in 2023 alleging that administrators in the McCombs School of Business violated his First Amendment rights. The suit named the business school dean, a senior associate dean, and the finance department chair, claiming they retaliated against him for publicly criticizing university leadership and academic initiatives. Lowery asserted that his criticisms of university policies, including comments about governance and campus programs, prompted officials to threaten his position and interfere with his professional activities.
According to the complaint, Lowery contended that administrators conveyed that his public statements were creating problems for the business school and suggested that continued criticism could affect his status, pay, or research opportunities. He claimed these actions chilled his speech and caused him to self-censor, including by limiting his social media presence. The lawsuit sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that university officials used their authority to pressure him into silence.
The university denied wrongdoing and maintained that Lowery had not experienced any adverse employment action. Officials noted that he had remained in his position, continued to receive salary increases, and had not faced formal discipline. They argued that disagreements or criticism from administrators did not amount to a constitutional violation, and that the statements Lowery described did not rise to the level of coercion or retaliation prohibited by the First Amendment.
In October 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the dismissal of the case. The court concluded that Lowery had not demonstrated that the university took an adverse employment action against him and therefore had not stated a viable First Amendment retaliation claim. It held that the conduct he described consisted of criticism and informal pressure rather than actionable punishment, and ruled that his contract renewals and salary increases further undermined his allegations.
