Reges v. Cauce

Reges v. Cauce, et al. is a federal lawsuit brought by Stuart Reges, a Teaching Professor at the University of Washington's Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering against the University and its President Ana Mari Cauce. It concerns a university policy about including a land acknowledgement in course syllabi.

Stuart Reges is a Teaching Professor at the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science at the University of Washington, a non-tenured position previously titled "Principal Lecturer." He started lecturing in 2004, and has exclusively taught the introductory programming series. He co-authored an introductory Java programming textbook Building Java Programs.

In 2019, the Allen School began recommending that faculty include a land acknowledgement in their course syllabus to acknowledge the Coast Salish tribes who had previously inhabited the Pacific Northwest, and offered the university's official land acknowledgement (adopted in 2015) as a template. Reges disagreed with the university's recommendation to include what he viewed as a politically motivated statement in his course syllabus and also factually disagreed with the premise of the land acknowledgement, citing that the campus sits on land which had previously been densely forested.^[1]

In 2022, Reges included a satirical parody of a land acknowledgement in his course syllabus which stated the Coast Salish people could claim ownership of "none" of the land the university sits on. The statement attracted heavy criticism from students and was widely shared on social media. In response, school administrators directed IT staff to remove the syllabus from the course website and opened a second section of the course, taught by another professor, which they allowed students to transfer into. They also began a lengthy disciplinary investigation into Reges, during which time a merit pay increase was withheld. ^[1]

The investigation, which took 10 months, found that Reges had "likely violated" university policy EO-31, a nondiscrimination policy with "the goal of promoting an environment that is free of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation." The policy allowed the discipline of "any conduct that is deemed unacceptable or inappropriate, regardless of whether the conduct rises to the level of unlawful discrimination, harassment, or retaliation." Administrators declined to sanction Reges, but warned that future inclusions of the parody statement in course syllabuses would result in further disciplinary action.^[1]

Reges filed a lawsuit for first amendment retaliation and viewpoint discrimination in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 13, 2022, claiming that the university had unlawfully retaliated against him for engaging in protected speech. The lawsuit also challenged the constitutionality of EO-31, claiming it was overly broad and vague. He was represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).^[2]

Judge John H. Chun presided over the case. He was appointed by Joe Biden in 2022, and prior to that was appointed by Jay Inslee, both of whom are Democrats.

In May 2024, Judge Chun dismissed the plaintiff's claims.^[3][4][5]

Reges filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit on June 4, 2024.^[6][7] Amicus briefs were submitted in support of Reges by PEN America, Manhattan Institute, Pacific Legal Foundation, Students for Liberty, and James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.^{[8][9][10][11][12]} An amicus curiae was submitted in support of Cauce, et al. by Washington State University.^[13] Appellants asked the court for de novo review, substituting their judgment on how statutes apply in place of the lower court's prior ruling. De novo review is required on appeal in the United States, following the precedent set by Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. (1984).

The judges assigned to the case are Sidney R. Thomas, Milan Smith, Jr., and Daniel Bress. Reges' counsel presented oral arguments before the panel in a hearing on May 15, 2025. Appellants sought to revoke the letter of discipline against Professor Reges and an injunction preventing the University from enforcing Executive Order 31. On the subject of an injunction, Judge Thomas interrupted, saying "well, that's a stretch...", to which Smith joined in laughter. In terms of financial compensation, they sought interest on the deferred merit pay increase and emotional distress damages.^[14]

Two of the three appeals court judges appeared unconvinced by the University's argument. Judge Milan Smith remarked that he was "struck by how sensitive the students or others were, some people would call it 'woke', they can call it whatever they want, but the reality is they were upset. What standard do we use... let's say we had a room full of people who considered it a triggering moment if the professor blew his nose or if the professor wore a MAGA hat. Can that possibly count in a Pickering analysis?"^[15]

On December 19, 2025, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's ruling and remanded the case back to the district court.^[16]