Judge orders LSU to reinstate law professor after suspension over political remarks
BATON ROUGE, La. (Louisiana First) — A district judge has ordered Louisiana State University (LSU) to immediately reinstate law professor Ken Levy, ruling that his suspension violated his constitutional rights.
Levy was removed from teaching on Jan. 16 following student complaints about remarks he made during a discussion on First Amendment issues. A student reportedly complained to Governor Jeff Landry, prompting LSU to take immediate action. Levy then sued the university, arguing that his suspension violated his free speech, academic freedom, and due process rights.
In a ruling issued Thursday, 19th Judicial District Court Judge Don Johnson granted Levy's request for a temporary restraining order, stating that LSU must reinstate him without interference or further disciplinary action related to his speech.
The order states that LSU is prohibited from 'suspending Petitioner, or taking any tangible employment action against Petitioner on account of his expressions afforded protection under the Constitution of Louisiana and of the United States.'
The ruling also protects Levy from 'further harassment or retaliation by LSU on account of his protected academic freedom and free speech.'
Louisiana environmental activist loses freedom of speech lawsuit against parish officials
Levy, a tenured professor at LSU's Paul M. Hebert Law Center, filed his lawsuit after being suspended without prior notice or a hearing. According to his attorney, Jill Craft, Levy's comments referenced former LSU professor Nicholas Bryner's case, where state officials, including Landry and Attorney General Liz Murrill, called for disciplinary action over political remarks made in class.
Levy's lawsuit argued that his remarks—some of which included profanity—were made in a joking manner and used to reinforce his classroom's no-recording policy. He contended that LSU's decision to remove him was unconstitutional and lacked due process.
In response to Levy's suspension, Attorney General Liz Murrill issued a statement defending LSU's right to enforce faculty policies but also acknowledging Levy's right to due process.
'Facts, details, and law matter,' Murrill said. 'Professor Levy is entitled to a full appeals process and a hearing to determine where his behavior falls in this analytical framework. And I am confident that he will receive that due process as LSU's investigation runs its course.'
The ruling is a temporary measure, preventing LSU from taking further action against Levy while the case moves forward. The next phase of the legal process will determine whether the suspension was legally justified or a violation of Levy's rights. A hearing is scheduled for Feb. 10.
Levy has been employed at LSU's Paul M. Hebert Law Center since 2009. He was promoted to associate professor in 2012, granted tenure in 2015, and became a full professor in 2017.
In a statement, LSU said they will continue to move forward with a thorough investigation and are aware of the temporary restraining order.
In a statement, LSU said they are aware of the temporary restraining order and will continue with a thorough investigation.
In light of recent concerns regarding Professor Ken Levy, Louisiana State University reaffirms its commitment to upholding academic freedom while maintaining a respectful and professional learning environment.
The university values the rights of its faculty to engage in scholarly discourse and express diverse viewpoints. However, as outlined in LSU's Policy Statement on Academic Freedom, Free Speech, and Tenure (PS-15), faculty members are expected to conduct themselves in a civil manner, with respect for the rights, views, and opinions of others. This is a foundational compact in a university setting. If a student reports that a faculty member has broken this compact, we must investigate the concern.
While academic freedom protects speech, thought, and expression within the university setting to promote learning and knowledge, it does not provide a license to:
Use the classroom as a platform for personal grievances beyond the scope of the course or otherwise.
Demean or threaten students with differing viewpoints.
Engage in gratuitous use of profanity, particularly in professional training environments such as law, where students are preparing to practice under standards of conduct and civility.
PS-15 further emphasizes that faculty members, as both scholars and representatives of LSU, should remain mindful that their words and actions reflect upon the institution. LSU recognizes that faculty status demands professional responsibility and accountability.
While we are aware of the temporary restraining order, we will continue forward with a thorough investigation, conducted in accordance with LSU's bylaws and established procedures from which a final determination regarding Professor Levy will be made.
Louisiana State University
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
Gabbard battles senators over Snowden, Syria in fiery hearing: 5 takeaways
How former LSU Tiger Jack Bech is honoring brother killed in New Orleans terror attack
Black Caucus blasts Trump's DEI comments after Potomac plane crash
Kash Patel grilled on potential Trump pressure, past comments at contentious hearing
Authorities work to recover crash victims, identify those lost
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Another unanimous win for religious freedom at the Supreme Court
Is religious freedom a wedge issue? The unanimous agreement between all the justices in a decision just issued by the U.S. Supreme Court suggests the answer is no. The Court's example provides an important corrective to the framing of some commentators and advocacy groups. The facts of this case initially seem unreal — the state of Wisconsin determined that the Catholic Charities Bureau was not 'religious enough' to qualify for a tax exemption available to religious organizations in the state. Piling on, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed because Catholic Charities did not proselytize or exclude non-Catholics from its services. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has now corrected that decision and ruled unanimously that the state cannot prefer one religion over another on the grounds of the church's teachings. The Court's opinion was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She points out, 'A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination.' The state had denied the exemption to Catholic Charities simply because the group did not follow the practice of some other churches, which proselytize while providing social services and serve only fellow members. Since doing either of these things would violate the beliefs of the organization, it was treated differently from other religious organizations solely because of this belief. Justice Sotomayor's opinion summarizes the legal standard: 'When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny.' The Court rightly concludes that Wisconsin had no compelling reason that would justify this disparate treatment. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the Court's opinion and wrote separately to note another problem with the Wisconsin court's opinion. The Court treated Catholic Charities as separate from the local Catholic Diocese. This is contrary to the 'religious perspective' of the church, which is owed deference by the state. Ignoring the church's beliefs violated the First Amendment guarantee 'to religious institutions [of] broad autonomy to conduct their internal affairs and govern themselves.' Religion and claims for religious freedom are sometimes characterized as divisive issues. When a presidential commission on religious freedom was recently created, some commentators charged that this would undermine the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court's decision demonstrates that religious freedom issues need not be divisive. The clear constitutional protection of the right of people of faith to live and of religious organizations to operate consistent with their beliefs is right there in the text of the First Amendment. This is a threshold principle that no government can ignore without endangering the most basic liberties of its citizens. This is especially true given the fact that verbal expressions of personal faith have defined modern protections for freedom of speech, and gatherings of members of organized religion form the foundations for protections of freedom of association. State and federal lawmakers should ensure that their actions are consistent with this guarantee. Additionally, reporters, commentators, politicians and advocacy groups should take note that protecting religious freedom is typically a consensus issue for the U.S. Supreme Court, whose role is to ensure that the First Amendment guarantee is protected in legal disputes. In the 12 religious freedom cases decided since 2015, four have been unanimous and four more have garnered only one or two dissenting votes. There are, obviously, some cases where the justices don't reach consensus, but these cases should not cause us to lose sight of the strong support religious freedom claims typically receive. The Court's support for religious freedom is a bright spot in our current political climate. It demonstrates the wisdom of the Framers of the Bill of Rights in including specific religious exercise protections and vindicates one of the nation's highest aspirations: that people of faith should be free to act on their beliefs without interference or discrimination.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sharing an elected Louisiana leader's personal info could soon result in fines, jail time
A legislative proposal originally intended to provide an additional layer of security to judges and prosecutors who deal with violent criminals has been altered to shield a broad range of personal information about state elected officials in Louisiana. (Wes Muller/Louisiana Illuminator) A legislative proposal originally intended to provide an additional layer of security to judges and prosecutors who deal with violent criminals has been altered to shield a broad range of personal information about state elected officials in Louisiana. Free speech and good government advocates are concerned officials could use the law, which will take effect unless the governor vetoes the proposal, to silence critics, punish journalists and keep unfavorable information out of the public's hands. Last week, the legislature gave final approval to House Bill 681 by Rep. Marcus Bryant, D-New Iberia, after Sen. Caleb Kleinpeter, R-Port Allen, added last-minute amendments to include statewide elected officials, members of the Public Service Commission and state lawmakers under an existing state law that shields their personal information from being made public. The amended version of the bill passed the Senate on a 36-0 vote and the House on an 89-0 vote. The law prevents the elected officials' home addresses, phone numbers, personal email addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, federal tax identification numbers, bank account numbers, credit and debit card numbers, license plate numbers from being published in government records or on a public website. Also protected under the law are marital records and birthdates. An official's church, the school or daycare their child attends and the employment location of their spouse, children or dependents would also be shielded. 'It's incredibly concerning and broad … in a way I cannot describe because I don't yet know how bad it's going to be,' said attorney Scott Sternberg, who works on First Amendment cases, adding that such prosecutions would likely be unconstitutional. If Gov. Jeff Landry allows the proposal to become law, the newly included elected officials could request their personal information be removed from public records. It could also be used to force someone to remove an online post with personal information about the elected officials. For example, the law could be wielded against somebody who raises concerns about conflicts of interest pertaining to the employment of an elected official's spouse or child. If that person does not comply, they can be sued and face misdemeanor charges that carry up to 90 days in prison, a $1,000 fine or both. The bill could allow the sealing of marital records to prevent the public from learning of allegations of abuse in a divorce proceeding. 'In Louisiana's constitution … we have decided the people are entitled to certain information, because … the people have learned to check up on the government every now and then,' Sternberg said. 'Whenever an exception [to public records law] passes … it limits the public's right to access,' Sternberg added. Broadening the scope of the bill without public debate troubles good governance advocates. 'Slipping such a significant public records exemption into a bill with little acknowledgment and no debate raises questions about what people are trying to hide and undermines transparency,' said Steven Procopio, president of Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana. Lawmakers and other individuals involved in Bryant's legislation have not been willing to say how the last-minute amendments got into the bill. 'These bills are not mine. I'm just bringing them,' Bryant said in an interview, referring questions to Zach Daniels, executive director of the Louisiana District Attorneys Association, who declined to comment for this report. Insurance Commissioner Tim Temple said he asked to have statewide elected officials added to the bill but not state lawmakers or Public Service Commission members. Temple said billboards bearing his home address have been put up around the state, prompting his request. Senate President Cameron Henry, R-Metairie, said he did not ask for the amendments but supports them. Public Service Commissioner Davante Lewis, D-Baton Rouge, posted on social media he had 'no clue' how PSC members were added, adding he did not support the legislation. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Chief judge urges Louisiana leaders to call special session to redistrict judicial districts
BATON ROUGE, La. (Louisiana First) — A chief judge calls on Gov. Jeff Landry and top legislative leaders to redistrict judicial districts in East Baton Rouge Parish and other jurisdictions in a special session. Nineteenth Judicial District Court Chief Judge Donald R. Johnson urged fairness and consistency in the state's judicial election systems in a June 5 letter. Johnson called for the redistricting of District 2 of the First Circuit Court of Appeal, the Family Court of East Baton Rouge Parish, and District 1 of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal. 'The issue is clear,' Johnson wrote. 'In racially polarized judicial subdistricts where electoral outcomes consistently favor a white minority over a plurality of Black residents in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana has a constitutional obligation to act with fairness, transparency, and consistency.' Johnson's letter noted that Black residents are the largest demographic, citing House Legislative Services data that shows that 46.718% of residents are Black and 42.924% are white in the parish's total population. 'In summary, we have all sworn to uphold the Louisiana Constitution,' Johnson wrote. 'Judicial oaths require judges to protect and maintain equality of rights, which includes ethical objection to any statute that likely imposes discriminatory redistricting.' Johnson references House Bill 124, a bill that would restructure the 19th Judicial District Court. It would change the number of election sections from three to two and increase the number of judges elected from five to seven, and one at-large. The bill passed through the regular legislative session and now awaits Landry's signature. Louisiana Senate adds $1.2 billion to budget for one-time projects Three dozen House Republicans urge Senate GOP against 'budget gimmicks,' deficit increases 2 found dead at remote campground in Isle Royale National Park House Oversight Republicans schedule interviews with former Biden aides Louisiana senators push FEMA to halt Risk Rating 2.0 program Senate Republican calls July 4 'false deadline' for megabill Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
