Lawsuits
Swipe sideways to see the whole diagram, or open it full size.
Federal Suspension Case
In November 2025, I sued University of Kentucky officials in federal court to stop their investigation of my speech and to end my suspension from teaching and my ban from the law building (the latter has since been lifted), which the University imposed after I posted my petition for international military action to end Israel to AALS discussion lists. Woodcock v. Capilouto, No. 5:25-cv-00424 (E.D. Ky.).
Filings in this case are collected here.
Sixth Circuit Appeal in Federal Suspension Case
The District Court in the Federal Suspension Case initially abstained. I appealed, and the Sixth Circuit reversed in August 2026 and sent the case back for a ruling on my motion to end the investigation and return to teaching. Woodcock v. Capilouto, No. 26-5057 (6th Cir.).
Filings in this appeal are collected here.
State Suspension Case
Because federal courts cannot hear state-law claims against state officials, I brought my contract, Kentucky Campus Free Speech Protection Act, Kentucky Civil Rights Act, and Kentucky constitutional claims against the investigation and suspension in state court. The case was filed in Fayette Circuit Court in July 2026, transferred to Franklin Circuit Court (Nos. 26-CI-01010 and 26-CI-01017), and consolidated with the state dean case (of which see below).
Filings in this case are collected here.
Federal Dean Case (Voluntarily Dismissed)
In July 2026, I sued to block the University’s appointment of Gregory Van Tatenhove as dean of the law school over the faculty’s objection that he is unqualified. The appointment violates my First Amendment right of expressive association because I joined the faculty in part to send the message that my scholarship is subject to the review of peer scholars. I voluntarily dismissed the case in August 2026 and refiled it in state court. Woodcock v. Van Tatenhove, No. 5:26-cv-00262 (E.D. Ky.).
Filings in this case are collected here.
State Dean Case
My challenge to the dean appointment under the Kentucky Constitution and the University’s contractual commitment to accreditation standards. Franklin Circuit Court No. 26-CI-00885.
Filings in this case are collected here.
The major filings in all cases are provided below.
-
Supplemental Response to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
On October 16, I filed a supplemental response to the University officials’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. My response argues that immunity does not bar my claims. It also argues that my suspension, my exclusion from the law school building, faculty meetings and student advising, and the investigation into my speech were retaliation against…
-
Notice of Supplemental Authority on the Word ‘Should’ in ABA Interpretation 203-1
At the September 30 hearing, the defendants argued for the first time that ABA Interpretation 203-1 does not bind the University because it says a dean “should not” be appointed over the stated objection of a substantial majority of the faculty, rather than “shall not.” I responded that Interpretation 203-1 states what the mandatory requirement…
-
Order Denying a Temporary Injunction
The court denied my motion for a temporary injunction setting aside Dean Van Tatenhove’s appointment. The court found that “the faculty participated in good faith in each of the searches, that the University failed to hire, or even extend offers, to numerous well-qualified candidates approved by the faculty, and then hired the only candidate who…
-
Attorney General’s Motion to Dismiss the SJR 55 Claim
The Attorney General moved to be heard on the constitutionality of Senate Joint Resolution 55 and to dismiss Count IX of my complaint in the state suspension case, which challenges SJR 55.
-
University’s Motion to Dismiss the State Suspension Case
The University moved to dismiss the state suspension case.
-
Notice Regarding State-Court Proceedings
At the October 6 hearing on my motion for a temporary restraining order, the court asked about my state-court proceedings. I explained that nothing the state court has done authorizes or restrains the investigation, that no ruling on interim relief in either court can bind the other, and that the federal court is the only…
-
Response to Dispositive Motions
Before the October 6 hearing, the court asked whether the investigation causes irreparable harm, how immunity applies, and how its decision would affect third parties. I explain that the investigation is not a prelude to the unconstitutional action but the action itself, that immunity does not bar injunctive relief, and that the third parties most…
-
University Officials’ Response to the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order
The University officials responded to my motion for a temporary restraining order.
-
Order Quashing Subpoenas
The court quashed my subpoenas to Van Tatenhove, Capilouto, and DiPaola to testify at the September 30 hearing on my motion for a temporary injunction. It described the disputed facts as “broader issues of university governance,” and said it was unsure what statute or case law would allow a court to intervene in the appointment…
-
Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order
I asked for a temporary restraining order halting the remaining stages of the investigation and lifting my suspension until the court rules on my motion for a preliminary injunction.