The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has issued an order and judgment in *Roemer v. Board of Regents of New Mexico State University* (10th Cir. 2026), a case involving the termination of a tenured professor and constitutional rights claims against university officials.
Gary Roemer, a tenured professor at New Mexico State University, filed suit against the university's Board of Regents and six individual officials in both their personal and official capacities. The defendants include Dan Arvizu, Laura Castille, Donald Conner, Annamarie DelovAto, Rolando Flores, and Matthew Gompper.
According to court documents, the university terminated Roemer's employment in August 2021. The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico under case number 2:22-CV-00524-JB-SCY, indicating the lawsuit was filed in 2022 following the termination.
The case drew attention from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, commonly known as FIRE, which participated as amicus curiae. FIRE's involvement suggests the case raises significant First Amendment or academic freedom issues, as the organization typically intervenes in cases involving free speech rights on college campuses and faculty academic freedom protections.
The Tenth Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges David M. Moritz, Carlos F. Lucero, and U.S. District Judge Ann Marie McIff Allen sitting by designation from the District of Utah, determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in resolving the appeal. The court noted this determination was made "after examining the briefs and appellate record," indicating the judges found the written submissions sufficient to decide the matter.
The court's order specifically states that the decision "is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel." However, it may be cited for its persuasive value under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1(a) and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1(A).
The case highlights ongoing tensions in higher education regarding faculty employment protections and constitutional rights. Tenured professors typically enjoy strong job security protections designed to safeguard academic freedom, making termination decisions particularly significant from a legal perspective.
While the specific grounds for Roemer's termination are not detailed in the available court documents, the involvement of both individual university officials in their personal capacities and the Board of Regents suggests the dispute may involve allegations of constitutional violations that could result in personal liability for the defendants.
The fact that FIRE chose to participate as amicus curiae indicates the case likely involves important principles affecting faculty speech rights or academic freedom more broadly. FIRE commonly intervenes in cases where university policies or actions are alleged to violate First Amendment protections or threaten the traditional protections associated with tenure.
The case's journey from district court to the Tenth Circuit reflects the complexity of employment disputes in higher education, particularly those involving tenured faculty members. Such cases often involve multiple layers of legal analysis, including contract law principles governing tenure agreements, constitutional protections for academic speech, and potential civil rights violations.
The Tenth Circuit's jurisdiction covers Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming, making its decisions particularly influential for higher education institutions throughout the region. While this order and judgment carries limited precedential weight, it may still provide guidance for similar disputes involving faculty terminations and constitutional rights claims.
For New Mexico State University, the resolution of this appeal concludes a legal dispute that began with Roemer's termination in August 2021 and extended through federal litigation spanning multiple years. The case underscores the complex legal landscape surrounding faculty employment decisions at public universities, where constitutional protections intersect with traditional employment law principles.
The participation of multiple individual defendants in both official and personal capacities suggests Roemer's claims may have included allegations that could expose university officials to individual liability, rather than limiting potential damages to institutional responsibility alone.
As public institutions, state universities must navigate the intersection of employment law and constitutional protections, particularly regarding faculty speech and academic freedom. The resolution of cases like *Roemer* helps establish the boundaries of these protections and the circumstances under which tenured faculty members can challenge employment decisions in federal court.