The Institute for Free Speech and Vancouver Attorney Angus Lee brought the case on Gilley’s behalf after the University of Oregon’s Division of Equity and Inclusion blocked him on Twitter for saying “all men are created equal”
In a decisive win for free speech, a federal court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the University of Oregon’s Division of Equity and Inclusion’s communication manager from blocking Bruce Gilley’s online interactions with the division’s official X account.
Institute for Free Speech attorneys, working with local counsel Angus Lee, scored a significant victory in Professor Bruce Gilley’s ongoing free speech lawsuit. The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon has granted a preliminary injunction, protecting Gilley’s right to interact with the University’s @UOEquity social media account on X (formerly Twitter) without his speech being blocked, muted, or censored.
The court’s decision prevents the Communications Manager of the University of Oregon’s Division of Equity and Inclusion from blocking Gilley or hiding his posts for being “hateful,” “racist,” “offensive,” or “off-topic.” This ruling comes after the Ninth Circuit vacated a previous denial of the preliminary injunction in March.
The lawsuit originated when the University blocked Gilley from its @UOEquity Twitter account after he responded to a “racism interrupter” tweet by saying “all men are created equal.” The court’s opinion found that Gilley showed a likelihood of success on the merits of his First Amendment claims and would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction.
“This is a big victory for free online and campus speech. Independent thinkers like Bruce Gilley are allowed to dissent from the radical DEI orthodoxy destroying colleges in America without getting blocked or censored by university officials,” said Vancouver Attorney Angus Lee
The court rejected the University of Oregon’s arguments that recent changes in staffing and oversight made an injunction unnecessary. Instead, the opinion emphasized the importance of preventing potential First Amendment violations.
The case will now proceed with the preliminary injunction in place. The court has stayed the case for 60 days to allow the parties to explore settlement options.
Also read:
- Former WA Supreme Court justice joins legal effort against income tax
Phil Talmadge and Rob McKenna have joined forces with the Citizens Action Defense Fund to oppose Washington’s new tax on high-income earners, raising legal and constitutional questions. - Makeover in store for Congress with flood of lawmakers headed for the exits
A wave of exits from Congress—over 65 lawmakers—will usher in unfamiliar faces and decrease veteran expertise, shifting the political landscape in Washington. - Opinion: Sheriffs fight back
Four county sheriffs are suing to block a new law giving a governor-appointed board power to decertify and remove sheriffs, bypassing voter oversight in Washington. - Obituary for Lucille ‘Erma’ Christenson Madore – April 22,1924-March 13, 2026
Known for her love of music and family, Lucille ‘Erma’ Christenson Madore lived through nearly 102 years and leaves a large, grateful legacy in Vancouver. - Fiscal fallout: $375 million bond debt indirectly funding operating budget
Shifting $375 million from a loan fund impacts local infrastructure as Washington state covers operating costs with bond debt, prompting concern among officials and advocacy groups. - Lawsuit aims to block new eligibility requirements for WA sheriffs
Four sheriffs are suing over a state law that sets new eligibility rules, arguing it undermines voter authority by allowing removal for certification issues. - Opinion: The growing gap between public voice and political power
Todd Myers describes how large-scale protest and sign-ins often fail to sway state leaders, and argues authentic influence is most likely found through local action.
