Here is my reply, which points out that the University and the Kentucky Attorney General didn’t respond to one of my arguments and didn’t meaningfully argue two others. They primarily contested matters relating to application of the First Amendment—making arguments that, if accepted, would all but eliminate faculty freedom of speech.

Here is the principal brief in my appeal.

I petitioned for the panel to rehear my motion for an injunction pending appeal or for the full court to rehear it en banc. Update: On March 23, 2026, the Sixth Circuit denied the petition.

The court of appeals granted the motion to expedite briefing in part. The court did not issue an opinion.

My motion for an expedited briefing schedule for the appeal discusses some of the issues overlooked by the appeals court in its denial of my motion for an injunction pending appeal.

Like the District Court, this panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals declined to address the merits of my First Amendment and due process claims and instead focused on whether it makes sense for federal courts to abstain from hearing my constitutional challenges out of respect for the University as a state actor. Unfortunately, the…

The university’s response to my motion to the court of appeals for a ruling on my motion for an injunction pending appeal didn’t break much new ground. In reply I pointed out the many ways in which the university had failed to meet its burden on my First Amendment claims.

My motion to the court of appeals to rule on my motion for an injunction pending appeal elicited some procedural objections from the AG, which I countered here.

The University also responded to my motion for an injunction pending appeal. Here is my reply.