BREAKING: Federal Judge Denies UT Profs’ Request for Preliminary Injunction to Stop Campus Carry


If you’re familiar with the, um, imaginative underpinings of the suit three University of Texas professors filed in a hail Mary bid to hold up the school’s implementation of campus carry, this news won’t surprise you. “A federal judge on Monday denied a request by three University of Texas professors for a preliminary injunction that would have allowed them to ban concealed handguns from their classrooms.

“U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel of Austin said he found no precedent for the professors’ argument that they have a right of academic freedom under the First Amendment so broad that it overrides decisions of the Legislature and the university that employs them.”

Apparently Yaekel couldn’t find a right to academic freedom anywhere in the emanations and penumbras of the Constitution…no matter how hard he looked. Go figure.

Or, as Attorney General Ken Paxton put it, “There is simply no legal justification to deny licensed, law-abiding citizens on campus the same measure of personal protection they are entitled to elsewhere in Texas.” ‘Nuff said.


  1. avatar Mikele says:

    Holy crap common sense judicial verdicts I can get excited about!

    1. avatar Greg says:

      If we’re lucky these dim-witted, liberal professors will now quit since they claimed they couldn’t teach in such a dangerous environment. I doubt it though since most liberals are unprincipled hypocrites. Instead, I expect most of them will use their classrooms as anti-gun protest zones.

      1. avatar Jim Barrett says:

        Plus they’d have to give up the pig trough of tenure and go find a job in the real world. Liberal Academics hatevthe thought of actually having to work for a living in a place where nobody cares to hear them postulate on academic matters

        1. avatar Powers says:

          This is so true.

      2. avatar IdahoPete says:

        Plus they will find a way to give failing grades to anyone in their class they suspect might be carrying a gun.

    2. avatar mark s. says:


    3. avatar Daniel Lord says:

      That’s because that is Texas, a free state. If it was Comifornia, the opposite would have been the outcome.

  2. avatar Clay says:

    poor babies…

  3. avatar bastiches says:

    Cue Nelson Muntz’ laugh.

    1. avatar MiniMe says:

      [Nelson] HAA HAA! [/Nelson]

  4. avatar ToddR says:

    +1 for good guys.

  5. avatar Captain O says:

    And Nelson Muntz guffawed: “Haw Haw!”

  6. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    If their heads haven’t completely popped off of their necks yet just tell them “now it’s settled law.”

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Eh, they can try and kick it upstairs, I suppose. It will be telling if their temper-tantrum gets funded for an appeal of some sort.

      For the time being, they *lost*.

      And that, my friends, calls for a *snicker*…

      1. avatar Stinkeye says:

        This was just the judge refusing to grant their preliminary injunction. The full case remains to be heard, so it’s too early to be talking about appeals just yet.

        The reason they needed a preliminary injunction is because every day that they teach a class without one diminishes their already-ridiculous case just a bit more. By the time this winds its way through the courts, there could be a year or more of violence-free concealed carry on campus as a real-life (not imaginary feelz) counterexample to their idiotic claims.

        1. avatar Jim Macklin says:

          Bingo, the battle has been postponed. But will these fools begin to hope for a lunatic to come to a Texas campus?

          The November elections, at all levels in all states matter.

  7. avatar Model 31 says:

    Listen up professors….class is in session.

  8. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Leftie Profs through out the nation are now just a bit more nervous. Campus carry, coming soon to a campus near you?

    1. avatar IdahoPete says:

      We have had campus carry in Idaho for two years now, and the only problem was a professor at Idaho State who shot himself in the leg during class – he was carrying in a pocket without a pocket holster, and was no soubt fiddling with the gun. Ban college professors!!!

  9. avatar silverwarloc says:

    Next thing for these three is to resign if they don’t like it. The people have spoken.

    1. avatar John L. says:

      Actually I think it was just one person … a judge, to be precise…

      1. avatar Grant in IN says:

        The people had already spoken, the judge has told the profs that they *will* listen.

      2. avatar Stinkeye says:

        Doesn’t the original legislation count as the people having spoken?

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Actually, the people originally (sort of) spoke on the subject in 1992, when Governor Ann Richards was unceremoniously tossed out on her ass for her dictatorial refusal to even consider legalizing carry of any kind for Texas citizens, which was also the beginning of the political career of G.W. Bush. That goundswell did not provide exceptions for spoiled children afraid to try their luck in an actual job, who were hiding in academia instead. Since then, movement has all been in the same direction.

          Their claim, apparently, is that while discussing politics, anyone who is armed would certainly murder all those disagreeing with them, which should be just cause for taking those professors to court and removing their firearm rights because they are insane. Also for firing them from any academic position, since they are too stupid to realize that shooting people over politics is, in and of itself, illegal, regardless of carry laws.

  10. avatar Matt in Tx says:

    But! Their feelz!

  11. avatar LKB says:

    Opinion is pretty much what I expected . . . Judge Yeakel’s opinion is appropriately narrow and should be more than sufficient to withstand appellate review.

    However, the headline is not completely accurate. All this order did was to deny the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction — an extraordinary remedy that is very hard to get. The order did NOT toss the entire case (although I think the Court might be inclined to do so later — possibly on a motion to dismiss, but I suspect he’s more likely to do so on a motion for summary judgment).

    1. True enough. Headline amended.

    2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Does this mean a student can carry concealed on campus until such time as the professors’ full case is heard?

      1. avatar Harley says:

        With a CHL/LTC, yes.

  12. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I chuckled…

  13. avatar TFred says:

    And those 32 members of the Virginia Tech community who were murdered like fish in a barrel rest just a little bit more peacefully. For now.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      We need a more up-to-date (and accurate metaphor – perhaps “As easy as shooting people in a GFZ!” would suffice.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I am a VA Tech grad, 1969. Those students and professors would be sleeping just fine if several of them had been armed at the time of the attack by an untrained imbecile, whose only advantage was that he was the only one armed in a GFZ. But of course, that would have been illegal. He knew that, and spent the day preparing to lock his victims into that kill zone, so that he could take his time, kill and kill and kill until he got bored, which he then did! I was armed on campus many times over a 5-year period from 1964-1969, and yet no one ever died. I did not carry in class that I recall, my guns were too big for CC, as most were then, since CC was not a thing.

      IOW, really smart comment, TFred! Especially considering the location of the VA Tech murders was, in fact, a Gun Free Zone!!!! Wanna try again?

  14. avatar junkman says:

    Most college profs are total assholes–it is too bad they get pollute young peoples minds–glad they got their ass handed to them–about time reason prevails–need to deport all the stupid liberals to England or Australia

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      I wouldn’t characterize this as having had their asses handed to them. All they lost was a motion for a preliminary injunction.

      A P.I. blocks somebody from doing something, or forces them to keep doing something, until the matter is settled in court on the merits of the case.

      It basically freezes the action while they figure it out. Now, in order to win the P.O. motion, you must demonstrate to the court’s satisfaction that your case has a substantial likelihood of prevailing at trial. So you can view this as positive, but not dispositive, for our side.

      1. avatar LKB says:

        Yup. As Judge Yeakel noted in the order, a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, and a one enjoining enforcement of a state statute is an especially heavy lift even when the law is in your favor. Where, as here, the asserted legal basis was a real stretch at best (and borders on being a sanctionably frivolous claim), nobody with any courtroom experience seriously expected it to be granted (although as I noted in a prior post the screwup by counsel for UT gave plaintiffs a chance to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory).

        Bottom line: plaintiffs PI motion was just grandstanding for the press.

        Does losing this motion mean that their case is doomed? Probably (hey, it’s been doomed from the start), but I wouldn’t expect to see it dismissed anytime soon. The appellate standard of review if the case is dismissed on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is a lot harder for the defendants (i.e., all well-pleaded allegations int he complaint must be taken as true). A motion for summary judgment is probably a smarter move for the defendants (especially where as here their motions to dismiss rely on materials that are beyond the pleadings). And Judge Yeakel is known as being a very careful judge — he’s not likely to take any procedural shortcuts just to get rid of this case.

        Ideally, I’d like to see Paxton’s people just set the case for trial and really embarrass the professors. (Cross examining them would be just too much fun.) The case would probably be decided on a directed verdict at the close of plaintiffs’ case, but not before a good attorney could really humiliate the professors on cross in open court. But given the performance to date by UT’s counsel, I rather doubt that they have the stones to actually do so.

  15. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

    Call me superstitious, but I don’t much like to flaunt a victory, especially such a small one.

  16. avatar Ralph says:

    Professors were schooled. Turnabout is fair play.

  17. avatar RCC says:

    We have enough similar professors already here in Australia you can keep them

  18. avatar Ted Unlis says:

    The Texas Tribune has an online database with the salaries of all State of Texas employees listing pages and pages of well over 200 UT Professors who draw an annual salary of a quarter of a million dollars or more.

    Maybe the three Plaintiffs in the lawsuit and the rest of their ridicuously over-compensated progressive liberal academic peers at UT will become so incensed by the loss that they’ll resign their tenured position and seek employment in a staunchly anti 2nd amendment State like the People’s Republic of New Jersey or California and take several hundred plane loads of their radical liberal Austinite neighbors and UT students along with them.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      If they are really that concerned why don’t they just pool some of that outrageous salary they collect and hire some armed security guards to protect them from their righteously enraged students?

  19. avatar TruthTellers says:


    I can only imagine how many prescriptions of Valium they requested after the ruling.

  20. avatar TXGunGal says:

    “I can only imagine how many prescriptions of Valium they requested after the ruling”
    Nope, smoking a little dope to smooth the harsh, have to maintain the “cool” factor

  21. avatar 2004done says:

    I’m from NY, anyone have any idea how to lure this judge to a “blue state” to teach Constitution-101 classes to our judiciary? (Only temporary, of course, it would be too much like punishment)

  22. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    Photo captions are hard. If you’re making me click to another site to figure out what the heck that photo is about, you’re doing it wrong.

  23. avatar Kilo says:

    Makes me ashamed to be a Longhorn.well that, and not being ranked in the top 25… AGAIN!

  24. avatar Gman says:

    And yet, the vast majority of these students are denied their natural, civil, and Constitutionally protected right to self defense by virtue of their age. When is this travesty going to be corrected? We need to address the disparity of trust we engender in our youth. One can sign a legal document at age 18. One can join the military and die for their country and yet never have had a beer or shot of Jack. And one can be in the military, well trained in the safe and effective use of firearms, entrusted with fully automatic rifles, and still denied the right to purchase certain very bearable firearms and the required ammunition. And this is the real issue. Our government doesn’t seem to trust our youth, and it isn’t getting any better.

  25. avatar Sian says:

    They’re gonna need their safe space after this one.

  26. avatar mark s. says:

    Time for the presidential override , time for the 9th court , time for the already left leaning Supremes , time for the pen and phone , time to use the NSA . This cannot stand .

  27. avatar Declan McLonegan says:

    The Nelson- HAHA from the Simpsons is perhaps the absolute best answer to this I have the ability to fathom.

    ———->>> HAHA.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email