Reges v. University of Washington

Summary

On July 15, 2022, Stuart Reges, a principal lecturer in the University of Washington’s School of Computer Science and Engineering, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington alleging that the university violated his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for protected speech. The complaint asserts claims of First Amendment retaliation and viewpoint discrimination and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages.

The case arises from a Fall 2021 syllabus for a required introductory computer science course in which Reges included a parody land acknowledgment statement. The statement criticized prevailing land acknowledgment practices and addressed broader debates over property theory and Indigenous land claims. Following student and public complaints, the university removed the syllabus from the course website, publicly condemned the statement as “offensive and inappropriate,” initiated an investigation under its anti-harassment and nondiscrimination policies, and created an alternate course section to allow students to avoid enrolling in Reges’s class.

In response, Reges alleged that the university’s actions were motivated by disagreement with his viewpoints, pointing to additional protected expression cited by the university, including his refusal to adopt the university’s official land acknowledgment, prior writings on gender and computing, and his participation in a 2019 “Affirmative Action Bake Sale.” He further contended that the university relied on vague harassment policies and cited offensiveness rather than any concrete disruption to justify its actions. The university denied that it had disciplined or demoted Reges, asserting that its actions were part of broader changes to course management and were based on legitimate institutional concerns, including maintaining an inclusive learning environment.

In granting summary judgment to the university, the district court applied the Pickering balancing test and concluded that the university’s interests in preventing disruption and promoting inclusivity outweighed Reges’s speech interests.

On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in a divided decision, holding that Reges’s syllabus statement constituted protected speech on a matter of public concern. The court emphasized that academic speech at public universities is entitled to First Amendment protection and rejected the university’s justification, finding insufficient evidence of actual disruption to instruction, student learning, or campus operations. The court further stated that student offense alone does not justify disciplinary action and cautioned against the use of broadly worded harassment policies to suppress disfavored viewpoints.

The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings, including consideration of appropriate relief, such as expungement of reprimands or other corrective measures.