The three-judge panel ruled unanimously, with Judge Andre Mathis writing in the 22-page ruling, “The First Amendment protects popular and unpopular speech alike.”
The Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has ruled that University of Louisville officials can be held personally liable for allegedly retaliating against a professor and not renewing his contract after he questioned gender ideology.
The three-judge panel ruled unanimously, with Judge Andre Mathis writing in the 22-page ruling, "The First Amendment protects popular and unpopular speech alike."
Allan Josephson worked as a professor of psychiatry in the university’s medical school, and in October 2017, he participated in a panel discussion on childhood gender dysphoria with the Heritage Foundation. Following this panel appearance, the medical school demoted him, and his contract was not renewed in 2019. "Even if Josephson’s participation in the Heritage Foundation panel were part of his official duties, that would not alter our conclusion that he engaged in protected speech at that event," the ruling stated.
Josephson filed a suit against university officials, alleging that the defendants had violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by "retaliating against him for the views he expressed on gender dysphoria." The defendants moved for summary judgment, "arguing that both sovereign immunity and qualified immunity protected them from suit," but the lower court denied the motions. The defendants then brought the case to the appeals court.
The ruling stated that Josephson "engaged in protected speech because it related to core academic functions," and that "a reasonable jury could find that each Defendant retaliated against Josephson because he engaged in speech protected by the First Amendment."
"Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Josephson, as we must, Josephson has shown that he engaged in protected speech when he spoke as part of the Heritage Foundation panel. Defendants should have known that Josephson’s speech was protected and that retaliating against Josephson for his speech would violate his First Amendment rights. Therefore, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity," the ruling added.
Josephson is seeking to be reinstated to his position and the expungement from his personnel file of any reference of the contract for nonrenewal.
Libby’s Desk
Commentary and must-reads from Libby’s desk, straight to your inbox.
TPM Newsletter
The Post Millennial’s top stories, delivered to your inbox.
