This week, the Ninth Circuit delivered a significant victory for free speech after Professor Lars Jensen won a critical reversal against Truckee Meadows Community College in Reno. Jensen had criticized the school’s lower standards.Jensen objected in 2020 and 2021 to proposed curriculum changes that he argued would have allowed remedial math classes to count for college credit. He distributed a flyer at an event detailing his concerns and warning that a student would be allowed to graduate from college while only being “ready for middle school math.”
TMCC Dean Julie Ellsworth told Jensen not to circulate his fliers during the break at the event, but he refused to relent. Ellsworth warned him that there would be consequences for his “disobeying” her.
In the two performance reviews following the confrontation, Jensen’s department chair suggested he receive an “excellent” rating, but Ellsworth gave him “unsatisfactory” ratings for “insubordination.” That designation required Jensen to undergo review for possible termination.
District Court Judge Larry Hicks dismissed the case in 2023.
Now the Ninth Circuit has reversed Judge Hicks and found that Jensen is entitled to his day in court. Moreover, the panel found that Judge Hicks erred in refusing to allow Jensen to amend his complaint.
The panel applied the Pickering standard that we have previously discussed. The Court has held that, when a public employer retaliates against an employee for workplace-related speech, the First Amendment requires “balanc[ing] . . . the interests of the [public employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968).
That standard, in turn, triggers a five-part inquiry:
“(1) whether the plaintiff spoke on a matter of public concern; (2) whether the plaintiff spoke as a private citizen or public employee; (3) whether the plaintiff’s protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment action; (4) whether the state had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from other members of the general public; and (5) whether the state would have taken the adverse employment action even absent the protected speech.” Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062, 1070 (9th Cir. 2009).
The Ninth Circuit ruled that:
“Jensen’s criticism of the changes in TMCC’s mathematics curriculum addressed a matter of public concern. “[T]he preferable manner of operating [a] school system . . . clearly concerns an issue of general public interest.” Pickering, 391 U.S. at 571. The handout Jensen distributed at the Math Summit spoke to the preferable manner of operating TMCC, specifically its math department. Jensen described how the math department’s lowered standards would impact almost a third of TMCC’s degree and certificate programs and how graduates would consequently have inadequate math and technical skills when entering the job market. Jensen also grounded his criticism in the effect these lower standards would have on the community, noting that employers in the surrounding area subsidize TMCC through their taxes and expect competent graduates in return. The decline of TMCC’s educational standards and the resulting impact on the community is a matter of public concern.”
The ruling remands the case back to the District Court of Nevada, where Jensen’s First Amendment claims can proceed. He may also choose to amend his other claims as necessary to proceed alongside them. Jensen is also represented by Nevada attorney John Nolan, who brought the lawsuit and wrote the briefs filed with the Ninth Circuit.
Here is the opinion: Jensen v. Brown
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.
Now the Ninth Circuit has reversed Judge Hicks and found that Jensen is entitled to his day in court. Moreover, the panel found that Judge Hicks erred in refusing to allow Jensen to amend his complaint. 해외홀덤대회
OT
I warned something like this would happen if the Supreme Court didn’t step up.
Apparently President Trump has signed an EO to ignore radical judges until the Court has ruled on the Article II executive power.
https://gellerreport.com/2025/03/president-trump-signs-eo-that-he-will-ignore-all-lower-court-rulings.html
It didn’t have to go this far but to my mind Trump was left with little alternative. Now the House should look at impeaching these Jacobin Obama/Biden Antifa radicals in robes.
Trump let it go until much of the country was sick of these antics. Now, I suspect, much of the country will be behind him.
I imagine the judges and Democrats believe they have finally trapped him. More like they have grabbed a wolf by the ears. Have they learned nothing about this wolf in the last four years? Apparently not. Maybe he can move the DC judges to Greenland someday…someplace nice like that. Or maybe do a Huey Long trick cutting off the courtroom heat in the winter and a/c in the summer…you know, to save the planet or some bs like that.
“Maybe he can move the DC judges to Greenland someday”
WTF do you have against Greenland?
LOL! You win the internet today.
Proclamation 80—Calling Forth the Militia and Convening an Extra Session of Congress
“On April 15, 1861,…President Abraham Lincoln issued a proclamation calling forth the state militias, to the sum of 75,000 troops, in order to suppress the rebellion. He appealed ‘to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union.’”
Proclamation 92—Warning to Rebel Sympathizers
“[On] July 17, 1862,…I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim to and warn all persons within the contemplation of said sixth section to cease participating in, aiding, countenancing, or abetting the existing rebellion or any rebellion against the Government of the United States and to return to their proper allegiance to the United States on pain of the forfeitures and seizures as within and by said sixth section provided.”
_______________________________________________________________________________
Now President Donald J. Trump MUST pull a full “Lincoln” and close the border, impose martial law, prosecute a war against the communist rebellion without a formal declaration, shred the Communist Manifesto and irrevocably extirpate all principles of communism in America, implement the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights including absolute freedom, absolute free enterprise, absolute free markets, absolute private property, and a substantial diminution of taxation and regulation, eliminate the Departments of Labor, Education, Agriculture, Energy, HUD, and EPA, issue the “Deportation Proclamation” deporting all illegal aliens, past and present, including those who illegally pursued citizenship as criminal border crossers and “asylum” seekers who all made false and fraudulent claims of phantom, nonexistent persecution as foreign citizens with no U.S. rights, establish coherent voter qualifications by State legislatures per the Constitution, declare English the sole official language of the United States, suspend habeas corpus, smash opposition printing presses, networks, podcasts, social media platforms, etc., and throw anyone and everyone who opposes him in prison to Save the Union until America is placed squarely back on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
CORRECTION
It appears that The Geller Report was wrong in saying that the EO declares that decisions of trial courts invading executive functions would be ignored was wrong. I see nothing on it today. Instead there is this report of a more moderate EO ordering agencies to demand bond when faced with a TRO.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/03/trump-signs-executive-order-cracking-down-radical-activist
The constant daily filibustering by Dennis and his sidekick Gigi must be banned.
“The constant daily filibustering by Dennis and his sidekick Gigi must be banned.”
It wouldn’t be this bad if the self-proclaimed reasonable posters would do what many of them claim should be done – ignore those vacuous troll posts (both the anonymous examples and the posting names you mention, among others). Unfortunately, many of them choose to do the opposite, and insist on engaging those trolls and trying to refute their nebulous, ever-changing claims, and, worse, do so at length. I frequently wonder if there aren’t individual trolls here who use different posting identities to argue both sides of an issue, just to see their words on the page. This column’s comment section is an egregious, but not atypical example: almost from the beginning, nearly all have been off-topic attacks or refutations of same. I honestly question whether this comment space has any actual net value whatsoever.