Federal Court Orders Texas State University to Reinstate Professor After Speech Controversy

On June 29, 2024, Dr. Idris Robinson, a non-tenured but tenure-track Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Texas State University, delivered a speech in Asheville, North Carolina, titled "Strategic Lessons from the Palestinian Resistance." The speech was not affiliated with Texas State University.

During the event, audience members who disagreed with Dr. Robinson’s views attempted to livestream the talk, leading to a scuffle. The police report from the incident did not identify Dr. Robinson as a suspect or witness, and defendants did not claim he incited or encouraged violence. Dr. Robinson resumed teaching in the fall of 2024 without incident.

Following the 2024 fall semester and again in March 2025, Dr. Robinson received highly positive performance reviews. One review noted,

"Dr. Robinson is a fantastic colleague, excellent in all areas of review. Worthy of Merit."

On June 5, 2025, social media posts criticizing the content of Dr. Robinson’s Asheville Speech led to public calls for his firing on Instagram. The next day, Texas State University placed him 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 his contract would not be extended beyond the 2025–2026 academic year.

Dr. Robinson filed a lawsuit, Robinson v. Damphousse, arguing that the university’s decision was retaliation for his speech, violating his First Amendment rights. The defendants did not provide an alternative reason for the non-renewal or dispute Dr. Robinson’s claim.

Court Rules in Favor of Dr. Robinson

On Wednesday, Judge Alan Albright of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction requiring Texas State University to reinstate Dr. Robinson. The court analyzed whether Dr. Robinson met the four elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim:

• Adverse employment action: Dr. Robinson was placed on administrative leave and denied contract renewal.
• Speech involved a matter of public concern: The court found the Israel-Palestine conflict qualifies as a matter of public concern.
• Interest in speaking outweighed the university’s interest in efficiency: The Asheville Speech did not disrupt university operations.
• Protected speech motivated the conduct: Defendants did not dispute that Dr. Robinson’s speech motivated the university’s actions.

The court concluded that Dr. Robinson met his burden of persuasion for elements two, three, and four. Additionally, defendants did not argue that the speech fell within First Amendment exceptions such as incitement or true threats.