The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled on a significant case involving the tenure rights of nine professors at Emporia State University (ESU). The court's decision, filed on November 9, 2026, addresses the professors' claims against university administrators and members of the Kansas Board of Regents (KBOR) regarding their terminations. The case highlights important issues related to due process and qualified immunity in the context of employment rights for public university faculty.

The professors, who were all tenured, alleged that their terminations violated their constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They claimed they were fired without due process and that their terminations were politically motivated. The court's ruling is crucial as it clarifies the legal protections afforded to tenured faculty and the limitations on the authority of university administrators.

Background

The plaintiffs in this case are Amanda Miracle, Christopher Lovett, Michael Behrens, Rob Catlett, Charles Emmer, Brenda Koerner, Sheryl Lidzy, Michael Morales, and Lynnette Sievert. They brought their claims against several defendants, including Ken Hush, the interim president of ESU, and Brent Thomas, the provost and vice president of academic affairs. The dispute arose after the KBOR amended its Workforce Management Plan (WMP) in January 2021, allowing for the termination of tenured faculty without the usual protections.

The professors argued that the amendment to the WMP, which was enacted due to financial pressures from the COVID-19 pandemic, was improperly applied to them. They contended that ESU did not face a legitimate financial exigency and that their terminations were instead based on their political beliefs and activities, including support for unionization. After the KBOR approved a framework for implementing the terminations, ESU terminated the nine professors on September 15, 2022, effective May 16, 2023.

The Ruling

The Tenth Circuit Court ruled on the appeal from the defendants regarding their claims of qualified immunity. The court affirmed the district court's decision to allow the professors' procedural due process claims to move forward. The judges found that the professors had a legitimate property interest in their continued employment due to their tenure status and that they were not afforded adequate due process before their terminations.

The court stated, "The lack of procedural process provided to Plaintiffs prior to the adoption of the ESU Framework and the lack of substantive justification for the subsequent terminations are sufficient plausibly to allege clearly established violations of procedural due process at the motion-to-dismiss stage."

However, the court reversed the district court's decision regarding claims of substantive due process, finding that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege a violation of that right. Additionally, the court dismissed several claims against the KBOR defendants and others, citing insufficient support for those allegations.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for the future of tenure protections at public universities in Kansas and potentially beyond. It reaffirms that tenured professors have a property interest in their employment that cannot be revoked without due process. The court's decision to allow the procedural due process claims to proceed means that the professors will have the opportunity to argue their case in court, which could lead to further scrutiny of the actions taken by university administrators under the amended WMP.

The ruling also underscores the limitations of qualified immunity for public officials, particularly in cases involving alleged violations of constitutional rights. By affirming some claims while dismissing others, the court has set a precedent that clarifies the balance between administrative authority and the rights of faculty members.

What's Next

The case will return to the district court for further proceedings on the remaining claims. The defendants may seek to appeal the ruling further, but it remains to be seen whether they will pursue that option. Meanwhile, the outcome of this case could influence similar disputes involving tenure and employment rights at public universities across the country.