Briefs filed in Churchill v. CU appeal
“The University was not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity because the Regents were not acting in a judicial capacity. . . . They had pre-judged the case based on their own political viewpoints and political pressure. . . . . Reinstatement is appropriate in this case because it is the preferred remedy for a First Amendment violation.”
Read Ward Churchill’s Opening Brief
“Academic freedom, a central component of the First Amendment and essential to a thriving democracy, is imperiled when state university officials succumb to political pressure to fire a tenured professor over constitutionally protected statements. Affording the shield of absolute immunity to university officials and vacating a jury finding of wrongful discharge . . . . threatens the fundamental rights of all faculty members. Fidelity to the rule of law requires a remedy for those deprived of their constitutional rights by state officials. . . .”
Read Amicus Brief of National Lawyers Guild, Center for Constitutional Rights, Society of American Law Teachers, Latina/o Critical Legal Theory, and Individual Attorneys and Law Professors.
“Despite [the Supreme Court’s] very clear protection of the right of university professors to engage in lawful speech without fear of retaliation, the trial court’s opinion renders this protection illusory for the over 8,000 professors in the University of Colorado system. . . .”
Read Amicus Brief of American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Colorado, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the National Coalition Against Censorship
Churchill v. CU:Appeal Filed
On Aug. 13, 2009, Ward Churchill's attorneys filed a Notice of Appeal in the Colorado Court of Appeals. It contests Judge Naves' vacating of the jury verdict, his refusal to grant reinstatement, and many of his rulings during the trial.
