Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PROCEDURE—6th Cir.: Investigation of professor’s anti-Israeli comments not ongoing proceeding for abstention purposes, (Aug 25, 2026)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

The Sixth Circuit held that the disciplinary proceedings against the professor were not “ongoing,” but remained in a preliminary investigatory stage.

A tenured law professor’s suit against the University of Kentucky following disciplinary action after he called for the military invasion of Israel was remanded to federal district court to consider his motion for a preliminary injunction. During the early stages of the investigation into his comments, the professor sued the university, but the district court abstained under Younger. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit held that the district court erred because the university’s investigation was not an ongoing state proceeding for purposes of abstention. Accordingly, the appeals court reversed the district court and remanded for consideration of the professor’s motion for a preliminary injunction ( Woodcock v. University of Kentucky , No. 26-5057 (6th Cir. Aug. 24, 2026)).

On July 6, 2025, a tenured law professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law posted a petition online calling for military action against Israel. Twelve days later, the University notified the professor that it was launching an investigation because his petition may have created “a hostile environment for Jewish members of the university community.” That same day, the University also sent a letter to the professor explaining that he would be temporarily reassigned to only “professional development.” The letter further explained that he was barred from the law school and would no longer instruct students during the investigation.

Notice. On July 22, 2025, the university sent the professor a “Notice of Investigation” that detailed four discrete allegations where the professor engaged in speech critical of Israel. A month later, the professor had a video meeting with the university about the investigation’s next steps. On August 25, the university emailed the professor, requesting a list of witnesses and relevant evidence for the investigation. The letter also explained that the university could not provide an exact timeline but would seek to complete the fact-gathering stage of the investigation within 60 to 90 calendar days. The notice described the stages of the investigation, none of which had been completed.

Amended notice. In early September, the university sent the professor an amended Notice of Investigation, which included allegations made against him by four students. The amended notice also alleged that the professor created a hostile environment based on race, color, or national origin by allegedly “calling for... the ultimate destruction of Israel,” using “antisemitic tropes,” “making anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli remarks during an optional lecture,” and “shouting, ‘Free Palestine,’ while driving a car with University of Kentucky law students.”

Lawsuit. On November 13, 2025, the professor sued the university, several of its administrators, and other government officials. On December 1, the university sent the professor a long questionnaire about incidents referenced in the amended notice. The professor did not respond to the questionnaire. As a result, the university’s investigation remained in its preliminary fact-finding stage, and the university has not yet determined whether a formal hearing is needed.

Meanwhile, the professor sought a preliminary injunction. Soon after, the university responded with a motion to abstain. A federal district court in Kentucky granted the university’s motion, concluding that Younger required abstention. This appeal ensued.

Application of Younger abstention. To determine whether Younger abstention applies, the Sixth Circuit employs a two-step inquiry. First, the appellate court determined whether the state proceeding fell into one of three “exceptional” categories. These three categories include: (1) state criminal prosecutions, (2) civil enforcement proceedings, and (3) civil proceedings involving certain orders that are uniquely in furtherance of the state courts’ ability to perform their judicial functions. The civil enforcement proceedings referenced in the second category are those “akin to a criminal prosecution.”

The Sixth Circuit assumed without deciding that a state university’s formal enforcement procedure for reviewing a professor’s alleged violations of university policy constituted a civil enforcement proceeding akin to a criminal prosecution. On this assumption, the court then considered three additional factors: (1) whether the underlying state proceedings were “ongoing”; (2) whether the proceedings implicated important state interests; and (3) whether there was an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional challenges in the underlying proceeding.

Not ongoing. The first factor, whether the underlying state proceedings were “ongoing,” was the dispositive factor in this case. The Sixth Circuit held that the proceedings were not ongoing. On the contrary, the court found that the disciplinary proceedings against the professor remained in a preliminary, investigatory stage.

There is no ongoing formal proceeding against the professor, the court determined, nor has the university filed a formal complaint against him. Indeed, the appeals court noted that the university had not even made a threshold determination that the professor violated one of its policies.

And the university’s Notices of Investigation were likewise insufficient triggers for Younger abstention, the Sixth Circuit determined. To date, the court noted, the university’s investigatory steps—including temporarily reassigning the professor’s duties—fell short of a formalized, ongoing proceeding. Simply put, said the court, abstention here was inappropriate because no formalized proceeding was underway.

Doe v. University of Kentucky distinguished. In its response, the university noted that the Sixth Circuit held that abstention was appropriate in Doe v. University of Kentucky, which involved the university’s internal disciplinary process for students. But the court here found that Doe was distinguishable from the facts in this case. The plaintiff in Doe had already gone through multiple formal Title IX hearings and had more scheduled before filing suit. In that case, the Sixth Circuit merely held that those formal hearings were enough to satisfy Younger’s ongoing proceeding requirement. Here, said the court, the university is still determining whether a formal hearing will be necessary. The Sixth Circuit thus declined to extend Doe to a new context.

Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court and remanded for consideration of the professor’s motion for a preliminary injunction and further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The case is No. 26-5057.

Judge: Griffin, R.

Attorneys: Rima N. Kapitan (Kapitan Gomaa Law) for Ramsi A. Woodcock. Bryan Howard Beauman (Sturgill, Turner, Barker & Moloney) for University of Kentucky, Eli Capilouto, Robert Dipaola, William Eugene Thro, and James C. Duff.

Companies: University of Kentucky

Cases: Procedure KentuckyNews MichiganNews OhioNews TennesseeNews