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.
-
Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
I asked the court to stop Van Tatenhove from taking office on July 15 and to place the powers of the dean in the hands of the faculty’s elected Executive Committee until the University appoints a dean the faculty approves.
-
Amicus Brief of Jewish Voice for Peace, Middle East Studies Association, and Critical Legal Collective
JVP Action (doing business as Jewish Voice for Peace), the Critical Legal Collective, and the Middle East Studies Association filed an amicus brief in the Sixth Circuit in support of my appeal.
-
Response to Motion of Brandeis Center to File Amicus Brief
Brandeis Center is one of the principal architects of the Palestine exception to free speech on campus. Its founder and CEO once declared that losing antisemitism cases is still a win for him because “[t]hese cases – even when rejected – expose administrators to bad publicity.” Here is my response opposing Brandeis Center’s filing of…
-
Reply Brief
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.
-
Petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc
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.
-
Order Partially Expediting Briefing
The court of appeals granted the motion to expedite briefing in part. The court did not issue an opinion.
-
Motion to Expedite
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.
-
Court of Appeals’ Denial of 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…