In a major victory for the First Amendment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled against the University of Washington for unlawfully retaliating against a professor over his speech. The decision is a clear rebuke of woke administrative overreach and a strong affirmation of free expression on public university campuses.

The case involved Professor Stuart Reges, a computer science professor at the University of Washington, who criticized and mocked the university’s mandated “land acknowledgment” language in his course syllabus. Rather than parroting the administration’s political messaging, Reges expressed his own viewpoint—a constitutionally protected act of speech.

Because the University of Washington is a public university, it is a government actor and therefore fully bound by the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit emphasized that public universities cannot punish professors simply because their views offend students or administrators.

Following student complaints, the university investigated Reges, delayed his pay, and threatened discipline—actions the court found amounted to unconstitutional retaliation for protected speech.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that discomfort or disagreement with a professor’s views is not a valid justification for punishment. Colleges, the court explained, are meant to be the “marketplace of ideas,” where debate and dissent are not only tolerated but essential.

By allowing a “heckler’s veto” to influence discipline, the university violated core First Amendment principles.

This decision is a significant win for academic freedom, free speech, and constitutional rights more broadly. Without robust First Amendment protections, the ability to defend other fundamental liberties—including the Second Amendment—quickly erodes.

The ruling sends a clear warning to public universities nationwide: ideological conformity cannot be enforced through retaliation. Free speech still matters—and the Constitution still applies.