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.