Court Orders Reinstatement of Untenured Professor Allegedly Non-Renewed for Speech About “the Palestinian Resistance”

From Robinson v. Damphousse, decided Wednesday by Judge Alan Albright (W.D. Tex.):

Plaintiff Dr. Idris Robinson is a non-tenured, but tenure track Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Texas State University. On June 29, 2024, Dr. Robinson delivered a speech in Asheville, North Carolina titled “Strategic Lessons from the Palestinian Resistance” (“Asheville Speech”). Professor Robinson in no way affiliated the talk with Texas State University. During the Asheville Speech, audience members who disagreed with Dr. Robinson’s views attempted to livestream the event. A scuffle broke out. The police report documenting the incident does not identify Dr. Robinson as a suspect or witness. Defendants do not contend that Dr. Robinson incited or encouraged the violence.

Dr. Robinson resumed teaching in the fall without incident. After the 2024 fall semester, and again in March 2025, Dr. Robinson received excellent performance reviews. ECF No. 1-3 at 74 (“Dr. Robinson is a fantastic colleague, excellent in all areas of review. Worthy of Merit.”); id. at 109 (2024-2025 3rd Year Tenure-Track Reappointment) (noting that the Associate Provost’s Action Recommendation is to reappoint Dr. Robinson for one-year and that Dr. Robinson is “making good progress towards tenure”).

On June 5, 2025, individuals who disagreed with the content of Dr. Robinson’s Asheville Speech began calling for Dr. Robinson’s firing on Instagram. That day, due to the posts, Texas State University began receiving complaints about Dr. Robinson. One day later, Dr. Robinson was placed on administrative leave due to “multiple complaints and allegations regarding an incident that occurred in the summer of 2024.” In July 2025, Dr. Robinson was informed that “the decision has been reached not to extend your contract beyond the 2025-2026 academic year….” …

Dr. Robinson contends the University’s non-renewal decision was due to the content of the Asheville Speech, which Dr. Robinson contends violates his First Amendment Rights. To date, Defendants have not offered any other reason for Dr. Robinson’s non-renewal, nor do Defendants refute Dr. Robinson’s contention that he was not renewed due to the Asheville Speech….

The court issued a preliminary injunction requiring that Robinson be reinstated; an excerpt from the analysis:

To demonstrate a prima facie case for a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must establish that: “(1) he suffered an adverse employment [action]; (2) his speech involved a matter of public concern; (3) his interest in speaking outweighed the governmental defendant’s interest in promoting efficiency; and (4) the protected speech motivated the defendant’s conduct.” Here, retaliation elements 2, 3, and 4 are not disputed by Defendants. {Further, Defendants do not contend that the Asheville Speech’s content fell within the First Amendment’s “permitted restrictions” [referring to exceptions such as for incitement, true threats, and the like -EV].} The Court, having reviewed Dr. Robinson’s evidence, finds that he has met his burden of persuasion for retaliation elements 2, 3, and 4. Dr. Robinson satisfied element 2 because the Israel-Palestine conflict is a matter of public concern. Dr. Robinson satisfied element 3 because the Asheville Speech did not disrupt university operations. Dr. Robinson satisfied element 4 because Defendants essentially admit, and the timeline confirms, that Dr. Robinson’s speech motivated Defendants’ decision not to renew his contract. Thus, the only question remaining for the Court is whether Dr. Robinson suffered an adverse employment action….

The Fifth Circuit has elaborated what constitutes an adverse employment action in the context of a First Amendment retaliation claim: “Adverse employment actions are discharges, demotions, refusals to hire, refusals to promote, and reprimands.” … According to Defendants, “non-renewal of a term contract does not appear on” [this] list and, thus, is not an adverse employment action…. [But] Defendants’ refusal to renew is materially indistinguishable with a refusal to hire or a discharge …. The Fifth Circuit has confirmed that a refusal to re-appoint can constitute an adverse employment action equal to a discharge….

JT Morris (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) and Michael Thad Allen and Samantha Harris (Allen Harris PLLC) represent plaintiff.