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.
-
University Officials’ Notice of Issuance of the Investigative Report
The University officials gave notice of issuance of the investigative report.
-
University Officials’ Response to the Motion to Amend
The University officials said that they do not oppose the filing of my second amended complaint but oppose my other requests.
-
University Officials’ Opposition to Expedited Discovery
The University officials opposed my motion for limited expedited discovery.
-
University Officials’ Suggestion of Mootness
The University officials filed a notice suggesting that, following issuance of the investigative report, my motion for a preliminary injunction is moot and the November 19 hearing is no longer needed.
-
Attorney General’s Reply in Support of His Motion to Dismiss
The Attorney General filed a reply in support of his motion to dismiss.
-
Order on the Motion to Amend and the Motion for Discovery
The Court ordered the University officials to respond to my motions to amend and for discovery by November 10, extended my deadline to respond to Secretary McMahon’s motion to November 20, and denied my request for an order under the All Writs Act. Earlier, on October 7, the Court dismissed the University of Kentucky as…
-
Motion for Limited Expedited Discovery
I asked the Court for leave to serve fifteen targeted document requests and five interrogatories in preparation for the November 19 preliminary-injunction hearing.
-
Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint
I moved for leave to file a second amended and supplemental verified complaint. The new complaint adds the events of the fifteen months since the University suspended me, banned me from the law building, and began investigating my speech.
-
Order Denying Temporary Restraining Order
On November 3, the Court denied my motion for a temporary restraining order and set a preliminary-injunction hearing for November 19 in Louisville, calling the issues ‘important questions worthy of further evidentiary presentation.’ The Court issued a corrected version of the opinion on November 5.
-
University Officials’ Reply in Support of Judgment on the Pleadings
The University officials filed a reply in support of their motion for judgment on the pleadings.