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, 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.

Reges filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 13, 2022. He was represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).^[1]

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.^[2][3][4]

Reges filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit on June 4, 2024.^[5][6] 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.^{[7][8][9][10][11]} An amicus curiae was submitted in support of Cauce, et al. by Washington State University.^[12] 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.^[13]

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?"^[14]