Senior attorney of the Institute for Free Speech, Del Kolde, expressed satisfaction with the Western District of Texas Court’s ruling on Professor Richard Lowery’s lawsuit against University of Texas (UT) officials. The court affirmed Professor Lowery’s standing to sue and deemed his claim appropriate for consideration. The court also agreed that the alleged threats made by UT officials could reasonably deter someone from exercising their free speech rights. The ruling was issued by Senior United States District Judge David Alan Ezra on September 5th.
Dr. Richard Lowery, an Associate Professor of Finance at UT Austin, filed a complaint in federal court alleging that UT officials violated his constitutional rights by threatening his job, reducing his pay, and removing his affiliation with UT’s Salem Center. The lawsuit also claims that the UT administration infringed upon his academic freedom. Lowery, known for his commentary on university affairs, faced backlash for his critiques of UT’s diversity, equity, and inclusion requirements. The lawsuit seeks to prevent UT officials from threatening Lowery’s protected speech and requests a declaration that these threats constituted unconstitutional state action. The defendants in the case are UT officials Lillian Mills, Ethan Burris, and Sheridan Titman.
In his statement, Del Kolde said, “We were generally pleased with the court’s ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss, which allowed Professor Lowery’s chilled-speech claim to proceed forward into discovery.” He added, “The court’s ruling on the retaliation claim was a bit more nuanced, but we appreciate that the court noted that this area of the law is evolving and that Lowery’s circumstances could still change while the case is pending.” Kolde also expressed disappointment that the court declined to issue a preliminary injunction pending trial but stated that their focus is on protecting Professor Lowery’s rights to free expression and academic freedom in the long run.
The court’s decision partially granted and partially denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, the motion was granted with regard to the plaintiff’s First Amendment Retaliation claim, resulting in its dismissal without prejudice. The court also denied, without prejudice, Lowery’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, suggesting that this particular motion may be reconsidered in the future.
The court’s ruling ensures that Professor Lowery’s lawsuit is able to move forward.
