Where (1) a law professor at the University of Kentucky who called for the military invasion of Israel was placed on administrative leave while the university investigated whether his actions violated any law or university policy and (2) during the investigation’s early stages, the professor sued the university, but the district court abstained under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the district court erred because the university’s investigation is not an ongoing state proceeding for purposes of abstention.
Reversed and remanded.
“Plaintiff Ramsi Woodcock is a tenured law professor at the University of Kentucky David J. Rosenberg College of Law. After Woodcock called for the military invasion of Israel, the University placed him on administrative leave while it investigated whether his actions violated any law or university policy. During the investigation’s early stages, Woodcock sued the University, but the district court abstained under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). On appeal, Woodcock argues that the district court erred because the University’s investigation is not an ongoing state proceeding for purposes of abstention. We agree, reverse the district court, and remand for consideration of Woodcock’s motion for a preliminary injunction. …
“Today, we assume without deciding that a state university’s formal enforcement procedure for reviewing a professor’s alleged violations of university policy constitutes a civil enforcement proceeding akin to a criminal prosecution. On this assumption, we then consider three additional factors: whether (1) the underlying state proceedings are ‘ongoing’; (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) there is an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional challenges in the underlying proceeding. …
“Here, whether the underlying state proceedings are ongoing is the dispositive factor. The proceedings are not ongoing. On the contrary, the disciplinary proceedings against Woodcock remain in a preliminary, investigatory stage. There is no ongoing formal proceeding against Woodcock, nor has the University filed a formal complaint against him. … Indeed, the University has not even made a threshold determination that Woodcock violated one of its policies. … And the University’s Notices of Investigation are likewise insufficient triggers for Younger abstention. … To date, the University’s investigatory steps—including temporarily reassigning Woodcock’s duties—fall short of a formalized, ongoing proceeding. … Simply put, abstention here was inappropriate because no formalized proceeding is underway.”