Kentucky Law Professor Sues To Stop New Dean And Every Federal Judge Already Recused

The battle for Kentucky Law’s dean has reached the stage where someone is suing. In April, the whole mess was now a garbage fire after a “substantial majority of the faculty” told those leading the dean’s search that Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove was an unacceptable candidate, lacking the academic integrity required by the school’s own rules. The university hired him anyway, and then spent a news cycle explaining that a federal judge’s opinions are a KIND of scholarship because Sixth Circuit reviews are kind of such as peer review.

It was not convincing.

Yesterday, Professor Ramsey Woodcock filed suit in the Eastern District of Kentucky to stop the meeting. This is, of course, the court that Judge Van Tatenhove leaves to take the dean’s office in Kentucky. After quick recusals from the rest of the district bench, the case has been temporarily assigned to Jeffrey Sutton – Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit – for reassignment.

There is a fitting irony that the validity of the university’s spin that “hundreds of (Van Tatenhove’s) judicial opinions have been effectively reviewed by the Sixth Circuit with an affirmative rate of over 80%,” has now fallen to the Sixth Circuit.

Woodcock’s main argument is an expressive claim of First Amendment association, and the association in question is peer review itself:

No other professional’s competence derives from his association with other professionals in this way. A footballer can be just as good at tackle whether he is selected for the team or not. A surgeon can be just as good at surgery whether he is licensed or not. If the football player is suspended or his surgeon’s license is revoked, he is simply prevented from practicing his art. But a scholar stripped of membership in a community of scholars cannot perform at all.

Because a dean evaluates faculty scholarship, the argument goes, installing a dean that faculty deems unqualified to evaluate scholarship “dilutes” the faculty’s collective message that their work is peer-reviewed. Woodcock goes further, arguing that he is in fact obliged to broadcast VS. message whenever you upload a letter to SSRN.

Woodcock is currently suspended from teaching for other reasons. A spokesman for Great Britain responded to this file saying, “Interestingly, if Professor Woodcock had spent his time responding to serious allegations about his conduct in a timely manner, rather than filing frivolous claims without merit, his case would have been resolved long ago.”

Not for nothing, but when an official statement digs into the whore’s bag of such “interestingness,” it suggests a litigant more interested in distractions than substance.

The professor also brings a tortious interference claim based on provisions in his contract requiring adherence to ABA accreditation standards—which prohibit a law school from hiring a dean over faculty objection:

The American Bar Association (ABA), which accredits the law school, prohibits the appointment of a dean over the faculty’s objection. ABA Standards Interp. 203-1, Ex. 19. Further, the ABA requires that a dean be a tenured member of the faculty. Id. in Standard 203(b). In effective recognition of Van Tatenhove’s lack of a scientific record, the University has said it will not appoint Van Tatenhove to tenure. EG 14 at 7. The ABA provides an exception to these rules for “good cause” or in “exceptional circumstances.” EG 19. But the faculty approved three other finalists selected by the University who, unlike Van Tatenhove, met the qualification for the role of dean and on information and belief that the University made no offers to any of them before selecting Van Tatenhove. EG 8; December wooden lamp. ¶ 22. (One of the other finalists said she would have accepted an offer. Ex. 28.)

What is the “extraordinary circumstance” here? Well, it won’t be the official position of the university, but they are the ones who want partisan powers seems to be the answer. Republican politicians praised the appointment of Van Tatenhove, a former aide to Mitch McConnell, while the governor has taken a look at the decision. The university’s administration lifted the faculty senate’s potential hurdle after disbanding the council permanently in 2024 — a move generally reserved for Emperor by Star Wars. The rules were also designed to remove hiring authority from the board of trustees, giving it to trustees. That rule has since been changed due to this employment. Everything leading up to the selection was designed to get decisions into the fewest – and most easily lobbied – hands possible.

As for the problems this could cause with the ABA’s accreditation process, DiPaola said at a committee meeting that it would be “several years before being reviewed again by the ABA.” Yeah, the “meh, we’ve got plenty of time before the cops notice” defense never fails. Although maybe they’re thinking about a future Republican governor joining the other states refusing ABA accreditation.

That’s probably how this ends, with the state of Kentucky immediately withdrawing from the ABA rules.

Earlier: The battle for the Dean of Kentucky Law School is a dumpster fire

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking like a lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions or comments. Follow him Twitter OR Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics and a healthy dose of college sports news.