For Immediate Release
Appeals Court Rules Again that Service-Related Faculty Speech Is Protected
Court Rebukes Truckee Meadows Community College and Washington State University
SAN FRANCISCO (3/12/25)—The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled again that the First Amendment protects professors for on-the-job service-related speech that deals with public issues related to teaching or scholarship.
A three-judge panel on Monday unanimously held that Truckee Meadows Community College in Reno, Nevada, violated the free speech rights of Lars Jensen, a tenured math professor who criticized a college decision to water down its math standards (https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/10/23-2545.pdf).
Ten years ago, in January 2014, a separate three-judge panel unanimously held that Washington State University violated the free speech rights of tenured professor David Demers when it punished him for creating a controversial plan to restructure the university’s School (now College) of Communication (Demers v. Austin, 2014; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demers_v._Austin).
“Like the pamphlet in Demers, Jensen’s speech concerned ‘what was taught at the school,’” the judges wrote in the Jensen case. “It denounced the co-requisite policy and the resulting effect on standards for students’ completion of math courses. Further, like the plaintiff in Demers, Jensen rooted his criticism of the curriculum change in concerns over the quality of education students would receive. Because Jensen’s speech was focused on the contents of TMCC’s math curriculum, it relates to scholarship or teaching” and thus is protected.
The two court rulings mean that administrators in public universities and colleges in nine Western states cannot punish faculty who criticize administrators or their decisions during meetings or conversations on or off campus. Until the ruling, many administrators incorrectly assumed the First Amendment only applied to speech uttered in the classroom or in scholarship. The court decisions help protect shared governance, which gives faculty the right to participate in the management of a college or university.
Although the decisions technically only apply in the nine-state Western circuit, which includes Nevada and Arizona, several other federal court rulings across the country over the last decade have incorporated Demers v. Austin into their decisions, according to Jensen’s attorney, John Nolan, who was a non-tenured instructor in the College of Business at the University of Nevada at Reno during the early stages of Jensen’s controversy.
“From the beginning, it was clear that Professor Jensen’s speech was protected by the First Amendment,” said David Demers, the plaintiff in the first lawsuit, who assisted in the Jensen case. “But TMCC deliberately ignored the law and continued to punish Professor Jensen. UNR also pressured Nolan to resign from his position after they learned he was helping Jensen. There’s something rotten in the Nevada higher education system.”
The dispute at TMCC began in 2020, when Jensen tried to complain about diminishing academic standards at the college. After administrators prohibited him from sharing his views during a conference, he distributed a flier that criticized the college for allowing students to graduate with math skills equivalent to a middle school student.
TMCC Dean Julie Ellsworth accused Jensen of “disobeying” her order not to distribute the fliers and sent Jensen an official reprimand. Over the next two performance reviews, Jensen’s department chair suggested he receive an “excellent” rating, but Ellsworth gave him “unsatisfactory” ratings for “insubordination.” As a result, Jensen was subject to review for possible termination.
“The college’s actions tarnished my reputation and chilled my speech,” Jensen told the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which argued the case before the Ninth Circuit. “The Ninth Circuit decision vindicates my First Amendment rights.”
Jensen would not have prevailed, though, had it not been for Nolan, who defended Jensen pro bono. Nolan wrote the brief that was submitted to the Ninth Circuit. FIRE attorneys submitted an amicus brief and argued the case before the panel.
The ruling remands the case back to the District Court of Nevada, where Jensen’s First Amendment claims can proceed and he can obtain compensation for the wrongs committed. But TMCC may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
For more information, contact David Demers at [email protected]
Appeals Court Rules Again that Service-Related Faculty Speech Is Protected
Court Rebukes Truckee Meadows Community College and Washington State University
SAN FRANCISCO (3/12/25)—The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled again that the First Amendment protects professors for on-the-job service-related speech that deals with public issues related to teaching or scholarship.
A three-judge panel on Monday unanimously held that Truckee Meadows Community College in Reno, Nevada, violated the free speech rights of Lars Jensen, a tenured math professor who criticized a college decision to water down its math standards (https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/10/23-2545.pdf).
Ten years ago, in January 2014, a separate three-judge panel unanimously held that Washington State University violated the free speech rights of tenured professor David Demers when it punished him for creating a controversial plan to restructure the university’s School (now College) of Communication (Demers v. Austin, 2014; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demers_v._Austin).
“Like the pamphlet in Demers, Jensen’s speech concerned ‘what was taught at the school,’” the judges wrote in the Jensen case. “It denounced the co-requisite policy and the resulting effect on standards for students’ completion of math courses. Further, like the plaintiff in Demers, Jensen rooted his criticism of the curriculum change in concerns over the quality of education students would receive. Because Jensen’s speech was focused on the contents of TMCC’s math curriculum, it relates to scholarship or teaching” and thus is protected.
The two court rulings mean that administrators in public universities and colleges in nine Western states cannot punish faculty who criticize administrators or their decisions during meetings or conversations on or off campus. Until the ruling, many administrators incorrectly assumed the First Amendment only applied to speech uttered in the classroom or in scholarship. The court decisions help protect shared governance, which gives faculty the right to participate in the management of a college or university.
Although the decisions technically only apply in the nine-state Western circuit, which includes Nevada and Arizona, several other federal court rulings across the country over the last decade have incorporated Demers v. Austin into their decisions, according to Jensen’s attorney, John Nolan, who was a non-tenured instructor in the College of Business at the University of Nevada at Reno during the early stages of Jensen’s controversy.
“From the beginning, it was clear that Professor Jensen’s speech was protected by the First Amendment,” said David Demers, the plaintiff in the first lawsuit, who assisted in the Jensen case. “But TMCC deliberately ignored the law and continued to punish Professor Jensen. UNR also pressured Nolan to resign from his position after they learned he was helping Jensen. There’s something rotten in the Nevada higher education system.”
The dispute at TMCC began in 2020, when Jensen tried to complain about diminishing academic standards at the college. After administrators prohibited him from sharing his views during a conference, he distributed a flier that criticized the college for allowing students to graduate with math skills equivalent to a middle school student.
TMCC Dean Julie Ellsworth accused Jensen of “disobeying” her order not to distribute the fliers and sent Jensen an official reprimand. Over the next two performance reviews, Jensen’s department chair suggested he receive an “excellent” rating, but Ellsworth gave him “unsatisfactory” ratings for “insubordination.” As a result, Jensen was subject to review for possible termination.
“The college’s actions tarnished my reputation and chilled my speech,” Jensen told the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which argued the case before the Ninth Circuit. “The Ninth Circuit decision vindicates my First Amendment rights.”
Jensen would not have prevailed, though, had it not been for Nolan, who defended Jensen pro bono. Nolan wrote the brief that was submitted to the Ninth Circuit. FIRE attorneys submitted an amicus brief and argued the case before the panel.
The ruling remands the case back to the District Court of Nevada, where Jensen’s First Amendment claims can proceed and he can obtain compensation for the wrongs committed. But TMCC may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
For more information, contact David Demers at [email protected]