Thursday, June 7, 2012      1:00 pm

New location:  Old Supreme Court Chambers

State Capitol Building, 200 E. Colfax (between Grant & Lincoln) 

Churchill v. University of Colorado:

Are the Regents of the University of Colorado absolutely immune from suit when they fire tenured professors in violation of the Constitution?  Do public employees have any legal remedy for investigations launched in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment? 

Come hear the lawyers’ oral arguments on June 7.  Click here to read Ward Churchill's Opening Brief, the University’s Response Brief and Ward Churchill’s  Reply Brief.… Read More

After an intense investigation, the Colorado Conference of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) issued a 136-page report concluding that the University of Colorado fired Ward Churchill in violation of “the most basic principles of academic freedom it purports to uphold.” 

According to the Report, CU’s internal investigative committee “suppressed and misrepresented evidence that worked in Churchill’s favor, and contrived evidence against him,” and repeatedly “violated many of its own rules.” 

Finding that Ward Churchill and adjunct professor Phil Mitchell were both ousted because of their political views, the Colorado Conference of the AAUP recommends “that any faculty seeking employment accept a position at the University of Colorado only as a last resort.”

Click to read the Report (the Churchill report is at pp.116-251).  See also “AAUP Unit Slams U. of Colorado…” Chronicle of Higher Education, Nov. 8, 2011; Academe Blog, Nov. 9 2011.… Read More

If a state employee is subjected to a retaliatory investigation because she made politically controversial statements, or complained of race or gender discrimination, does she have a legal remedy?  How about university employees fired because of their race, gender, or First Amendment-protected speech?

In 1871 Congress passed a law (42 U.S.C. §1983) to deter state officials from violating the federal constitution, and to provide remedies when they do.  Are Colorado officials exempt?

These are the issues for the Colorado Supreme Court in Churchill v. University of Colorado.

Click here to read Ward Churchill’s Opening Brief.   Amicus briefs have been filed by (1) the ACLU and (2) the National Lawyers Guild, Center for Constitutional Rights, Colorado Conference of the AAUP, Society of American Law Teachers, National Conference of Black Lawyers, Latina/o Critical Legal Theory, and individual attorneys and law professors.  

After response and reply briefs are filed, oral arguments will be scheduled, probably … Read More

Jan. 10, 2011. Ward Churchill's attorneys filed a petition today asking the Colorado Supreme Court to review the decision of the court of appeals because: 

(1) the jury should have been allowed to decide whether CU's 2005 investigation into "every word" Ward Churchill published or spoke publicly violated his First Amendment rights;

(2) CU & its Regents should not have absolute immunity from suit when they fire a tenured professor in violation of the U.S. Constitution; and 

(3) Ward Churchill should have been reinstated after the jury decided unanimously that he was fired for speech protected by First Amendment, not for alleged research misconduct. 

Click here to read the Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

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.

Churchill Attorneys: Judge Naves’ Opinion Vacating Jury Verdict Misrepresented Law and Facts

On April 2, 2009, after a 4-week trial, a Denver jury unanimously found that the University of Colorado had violated the First Amendment by firing Professor Ward Churchill not because of alleged research misconduct, but because of his constitutionally protected speech.

After all this, Denver District Court Judge Larry Naves vacated the jury verdict, holding that the University and the Regents had “quasi-judicial” immunity and should never have been sued in the first place. Just in case that didn’t stick, he also went on to opine that Ward Churchill should neither be reinstated nor receive compensation.

Attorney David … Read More

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 … Read More

Nov. 23, 2010. The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that the University of Colorado and its Regents have absolute immunity when firing a tenured professor in violation of the First Amendment.

Attorney David Lane responds:
It is truly unfortunate that our most cherished freedoms are left in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats in black robes to protect. We are less free today because the Colorado Court of Appeals has given the go-ahead to the Regents to fire any professors they wish after running them through a sham “due process” procedure. A jury of Professor Churchill’s peers found that the Regents violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Colorado Court of Appeals is letting them get away with it. Their made-up justifications ring hollow in light of the freedom lost by their actions.

Ward Churchill summarizes the ruling:
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is wrong.… Read More