“[T]he proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’” – Judge Paul Matey ¹

Overview

On September 8, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a highly anticipated decision in Jorjani v. New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT), holding that the public university’s non-renewal of a lecturer’s contract based on controversial off-campus speech violated the First Amendment.

Factual Background

From the Jorjani Opinion

In 2017, NJIT declined to renew the contract of philosophy lecturer Jason Jorjani after learning about his controversial off-campus comments regarding race, immigration, and politics, including remarks praising Adolf Hitler and describing “human racial equality as a ‘left-wing myth[.]’”² These comments were made outside the classroom and campus, and were later publicized in a New York Times article and video. The NJIT President denounced Jorjani’s statements as antithetical to the university’s core values, and he was placed on paid leave.³ The university reasoned that:

1. Jorjani’s comments caused significant disruption to NJIT, which NJIT believed would expand, and
2. the article revealed Jorjani’s associations with organizations that he had not disclosed.⁴

Jorjani sued NJIT in federal court, alleging retaliation in violation of his First Amendment rights. The District Court sided with NJIT, finding that the university’s interest in preventing disruption outweighed Jorjani’s interest in free expression as a private citizen. Jorjani appealed to the Third Circuit.

The Third Circuit’s Opinion

Why NJIT’s Action Didn’t Pass Legal Muster

In an opinion written by Judge Paul Matey, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision. Under the court’s analysis, a public employee’s speech is protected if:

1. The employee spoke as a citizen (not in an official capacity).
2. The speech involved a matter of public concern.
3. The employer lacked adequate justification for treating the employee differently from a member of the public.⁵

Longstanding precedent has defined speech involving a “matter of public concern” to mean speech relating “to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.”⁶ Here, both parties agreed Jorjani spoke (i) as a private citizen and (ii) on a matter of public concern.⁷ The Third Circuit weighed Jorjani’s interest in speaking his ideas as a private citizen, “even if lacking in classical rigor,” against the public employer’s interest to promote the “efficiency of the public serves it performs.”⁸ The Third Circuit panel held that Jorjani’s speech, while controversial and offensive to many, was protected under the First Amendment.

Further, despite putting forth dozens of student and faculty complaints, the court found no evidence of actual disruption to university operations – only speculative concerns.⁹ The court observed, “NJIT points only to the ‘disruption’ that followed the publication of Jorjani's remarks consisting of certain students' disapproval of Jorjani's speech, disagreement among faculty, and administrators fielding complaints.”¹⁰ There was no “evidence of specific student protests, upheaval, or unwillingness to abide by university policies. But ‘in the context of the college classroom,’ students have an ‘interest in hearing even contrarian views.’”¹¹ Indeed, the court reasoned that letters and statements from faculty and students were part of the robust campus debate that is necessary and expected in higher education and resulted in only a minor administrative burden.¹²

Implications for Public Employers

First Amendment Protections Are Broad and include public employees’ private speech on matters of public concern.

Disruption Must Be Substantial rather than speculative future harm in order to justify disciplining an employee based on their speech as a private citizen, especially in an academic setting.

Policy Violations Still Matter and remain enforceable, but cannot be used as pretext for retaliation against speech.

The Third Circuit’s decision in Jorjani v. NJIT is a reminder that public universities must exercise care when addressing legally-protected speech, even when that speech runs counter to institutional values and mission. Given constitutional protections for free speech, employment actions based on off-campus speech by employees require careful, evidence-based justification before taking disciplinary or other institutional action.