ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM, Lawrenceville, Georgia, Thomas W. Kidd, Jr., KIDD
& URLING, LLC, West Chester, Ohio, Tyson C. Langhofer, ALLIANCE DEFENDING
FREEDOM, Ashburn, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul R. Kerridge, KEATING MUETHING
& KLEKAMP PLL, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Shawnee State Appellees. Adam G. Unikowsky,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Washington, D.C., Jennifer L. Branch, GERHARDSTEIN
& BRANCH CO. LPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, Shannon P. Minter, Asaf Orr, Christopher F. Stoll,
NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS, San Francisco, California, for Intervenor
Appellees. Deborah A. Ausburn, TAYLOR ENGLISH DUMA LLP, Atlanta, Georgia,
Christopher L. Thacker, BILLINGS LAW FIRM, PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, Gary S.
McCaleb, Flagstaff, Arizona, Matthew J. Burkhart, GALLAGHER KAVINSKY
& BURKHART LPA, Columbus, Ohio, Jennifer C. Chavez, Washington, D.C., Randall L.
Wenger, INDEPENDENCE LAW CENTER, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Gerard V. Bradley,
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME, Notre Dame, Indiana, for Amici Curiae.
_________________
OPINION
_________________
THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Traditionally, American universities have been beacons of
intellectual diversity and academic freedom. They have prided themselves on being forums
where controversial ideas are discussed and debated. And they have tried not to stifle debate by
picking sides. But Shawnee State chose a different route: It punished a professor for his speech
on a hotly contested issue. And it did so despite the constitutional protections afforded by the
First Amendment. The district court dismissed the professor’s free-speech and free-exercise
claims. We see things differently and reverse.
I.
The district court decided this case on a motion to dismiss, so we construe the complaint
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. That means we must accept the complaint’s factual
allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in Meriwether’s favor. Handy-Clay v. City
of Memphis, 695 F.3d 531, 538 (6th Cir. 2012). Under this standard, we must reverse the district
court’s dismissal unless “it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Id. (quoting Guzman v. U.S. Dep’t of
Homeland Sec., 679 F.3d 425, 429 (6th Cir. 2012)).