LEXINGTON, Ky. — Republican attorneys general in 13 states, including Kentucky, are using a University of Kentucky lawsuit as an example of cases in which universities should be allowed to restrict what professors can say, pushing back on claims UK and other universities have violated the First Amendment, in a court brief to the United States Supreme Court filed Monday.

Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman and Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall organized the document, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to apply the same First Amendment restrictions to public university employees’ job-related speech as to other state employees. In other state jobs, the First Amendment has less protection over a worker’s speech, according to the legal brief.

“Public university professors are citizens, not sovereign citizens. That is not a put down, but it is a serious distinction,” the court document said. “Citizens–speaking as citizens–have First Amendment rights, and they do not lose those rights by setting foot on campus. But university professors are also public employees, paid by a State to teach specific classes in specific ways.”

The brief aims “to stop public university professors from hiding behind ‘academic freedom’ even if they spew antisemitic hate speech,” a news release from Coleman’s office said.

The court document defends UK in its decision that has prompted a lawsuit by law professor Ramsi Woodcock over his freedom of speech allegedly being violated.

Woodcock sued UK after it barred him from teaching in July 2025 because he called for the invasion of Israel and accused it of committing genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, which the United Nations Commission determined was true. UK barred him from teaching while it conducted an investigation.

UK is still investigating whether Woodcock’s anti-Israel comments in forums to university faculty and off campus were made in his “taxpayer-funded capacity,” Coleman’s office said. The investigation is also expected to determine whether Woodcock violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin in federally-funded programs.

In response to the attorneys general brief, Woodcock told the Herald-Leader he believes its part of his civic duty as a scholar is to speak out and challenge injustices.

“The people of Kentucky fund public universities because they know that scholars who uncover the truth and talk about it make society stronger,” Woodcock said in an email. “Whether I speak as a scholar or as a citizen, the Constitution protects my right to point out that the best response to the genocidal colonization project known as the ‘State of Israel’ is to bring it to an end.”

He continued: “Attorney General Coleman not only thinks Kentuckians can’t handle the truth. He wants to end the basic protections that allow teachers to speak truth to power.”

Coleman and 12 other attorneys general said they want universities, not the federal government, to decide how to handle faculty speech. But they also said the court should rule against Woodcock if UK’s investigation of him finds they were made in his professor capacity, according to their brief.

“After the people of Kentucky vote (Coleman) out of office next year, I hope he will return to UK to take a refresher course on the freedom of speech,” Woodcock said.

Coleman is running for reelection in the May 2027 primary, according to the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance. No other challenger had filed to raise money for the race as of Tuesday.

Why Kentucky, other states filed a brief with the Supreme Court

Monday’s legal brief is not part of Woodcock’s lawsuit. Rather, it challenges a July 7 ruling by the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. That court ruled that Florida’s “Stop W.O.K.E. Act” was unconstitutional because the legislation violates the First Amendment by restricting higher education instructors from teaching race and gender topics in public universities.

The brief from Kentucky and other states said the ruling was too vague because it lets courts decide whether a university’s First Amendment restrictions on faculty are “‘reasonable and related to legitimate (teaching) concerns.’”

The university claimed in court records that Woodcock violated its anti-discrimination policy, which generally defines antisemitism as hatred toward Jewish people. Woodcock’s lawsuit has claimed that his remarks weren’t antisemitic.

“Like other publicly paid employees, university professors only receive First Amendment protections when speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public importance while not in one’s official capacity,” Coleman’s news release said.

Attorneys general in other states also signed the brief, including Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina and Texas.

Where lawsuit against UK stands

U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Beaton, presiding over Woodcock’s lawsuit against UK, is trying to decide whether the university’s reactions to Woodcock’s speech have been retaliatory and in violation of the First Amendment.

“None of the remarks came in the classroom and none appears to have disrupted school activities,” Beaton said in a court order Nov. 3. “Yet all related in some manner to his role as a state-employed professor.”

Still, Beaton denied Woodcock’s request to stop UK’s investigation of him.

A preliminary injunction hearing to discuss further evidence and decide whether federal judicial intervention is needed is set for 9 a.m. on Nov. 19.

_____

©2026 Lexington Herald-Leader. Visit at kentucky.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.