Stewart v. Walz
Professor Russell Stewart v. Timothy Walz, Governor of the State of Minnesota, in his official capacity; Patricia Rogers, President of Lake Superior College (LSC) in her official capacity; Linda S. Kingston, Vice President of Academic and Student Affairs at LSC, in her official capacity; Jestina Vichorek, Director of Human Resources at LSC, in her official capacity; Nickoel Anderson, Vice President of Administration at LSC, in her official capacity
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-01330
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 16
In Stewart v. Walz, Judge Katherine Menendez dismissed most of Professor Russell Stewart's constitutional claims challenging a COVID-19 vaccine-or-testing policy that led to his firing, but allowed his First Amendment retaliation claim to proceed because his email to students criticizing the policy was plausibly protected speech that may have motivated his termination.
Public university professors and other state employees who were subject to COVID-19 vaccine-or-testing policies and who communicated objections to those policies to students or colleagues. More broadly, public employees who face adverse employment actions after speaking out on matters of public concern.
What happened
In Stewart v. Walz, Professor Russell Stewart, a tenured professor at Lake Superior College in Duluth, Minnesota, was placed on unpaid leave and ultimately fired in March 2022 after he refused to comply with a state policy requiring onsite employees to either prove COVID-19 vaccination or undergo weekly testing. After being suspended, Stewart sent an email to his students calling the policy unlawful, immoral, and coercive, and criticizing Governor Tim Walz by name. He then sued several state and college officials, claiming the policy and his firing violated his constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, and free speech, and that the policy imposed an unconstitutional condition on his employment.
Defendants moved to dismiss all claims, arguing none met the legal standard required to survive at this early stage of the lawsuit. The court agreed with defendants on most counts. Stewart's equal protection claim (the argument that the policy treated people unfairly without good reason) failed because requiring employees to vaccinate or test was rationally connected to the legitimate government interest of slowing the spread of COVID-19. His substantive due process claim (the argument that the policy violated a fundamental constitutional right to refuse medical treatment) also failed under the same rational basis standard, because courts have uniformly held there is no fundamental right to refuse a vaccine, and the policy here was not even a vaccine mandate — it offered testing as an alternative. His unconstitutional-conditions claim failed because no one told him he had to give up free speech rights to keep his job before he sent the email.
Judge Menendez denied the motion to dismiss as to Stewart's First Amendment retaliation claim, allowing that claim to move forward. The court found that Stewart plausibly alleged his email to students — which criticized the policy as immoral and called the Governor's conduct 'shameful' — was speech on a matter of public concern and therefore protected by the First Amendment. The court also found it plausible that the email was a substantial factor in his termination, since at least two disciplinary letters and the proposed discharge letter from College President Patricia Rogers specifically cited it. The claim proceeds against the four college official defendants (Rogers, Kingston, Vichorek, and Anderson), while Governor Walz is removed from the case entirely because the only claims against him were the dismissed due process and equal protection counts.
The detailed version
- Professor Russell Stewart v. Timothy Walz et al., No. 25-cv-1330 (KMM/LIB)
- Katherine Menendez, United States District Judge. **Decision date:** December 1, 2025
Background
Russell Stewart was a tenured (unlimited full-time, or UFT) professor at Lake Superior College (LSC), a public institution in Duluth, Minnesota, since 1992. In August 2021, Governor Timothy Walz announced a policy requiring onsite state employees to either provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination or submit to weekly testing. The Minnesota Department of Management and Budget (MMB) formalized the policy, effective September 8, 2021. Stewart refused to comply, asserting that the policy was unlawful, coercive, and violated his rights to medical autonomy and bodily self-determination. The college offered privacy accommodations and a less invasive testing alternative, both of which Stewart declined. He was placed on unpaid leave with teaching duties suspended.
On the day he was suspended, Stewart used his work email to send a message to his students explaining his suspension, calling the policy 'unlawful,' 'immoral,' and 'coercive,' criticizing its effect on college staff and society, and describing Governor Walz's governance as 'shameful.' One week later, the college initiated a misconduct investigation citing both his policy noncompliance and the email, which was characterized as an unauthorized use of state property to share personal political opinions. After months of additional meetings and correspondence — during which Stewart also sought (and was denied) a religious exemption based on his 'sincerely held religious commitment to the principles of liberty, equality, and consent' — College President Patricia Rogers sent a proposed discharge letter on March 1, 2022. That letter cited both Stewart's noncompliance and the email (claiming he had been explicitly told not to send it). His dismissal was upheld.
Claims asserted
Stewart brought five counts under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (a federal law allowing individuals to sue state officials for constitutional violations): (I-II) substantive due process; (III) equal protection; (IV) First Amendment retaliation; and (V) First Amendment unconstitutional conditions. He sued Governor Walz, College President Rogers, Vice President of Academic and Student Affairs Kingston, Director of Human Resources Vichorek, and Vice President of Administration Anderson, all in their official capacities.
Legal standard
To survive a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a complaint must allege facts that plausibly — not merely speculatively — entitle the plaintiff to relief. Courts accept all factual allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor, but do not credit bare legal conclusions.
Equal protection (Count III) — DISMISSED
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying persons equal protection of the laws. Because Stewart is not a member of a suspect class (a group that receives heightened legal protection, such as a racial minority), the court applied rational basis review — the most lenient standard, under which a policy is upheld if it is rationally related to any legitimate government interest. The court held that requiring onsite employees to vaccinate or test was rationally related to the state's compelling interest in slowing the spread of COVID-19, which courts have consistently recognized. Even accepting Stewart's allegations about natural immunity as true, the state's response was not irrational. Claim dismissed.
Substantive due process (Counts I-II) — DISMISSED
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against government interference with fundamental rights — those deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition. Where no fundamental right is implicated, rational basis review applies. Stewart asserted a right to refuse medical treatment and, more broadly, rights to bodily integrity. The court found that courts have uniformly held there is no fundamental right to refuse vaccination, and more importantly, the policy here was not a vaccine mandate — it allowed testing as an alternative. Stewart cited no authority holding that requiring non-invasive disease testing implicates a fundamental right. Accordingly, rational basis review applied, and for the same reasons as the equal protection claim, the policy easily passed that standard. The court declined to decide whether the deferential standard from Jacobson v. Massachusetts (a 1905 Supreme Court case upholding criminal fines for refusing smallpox vaccination) applied, noting that the Eighth Circuit has cautioned against its blanket application throughout the pandemic and that determining when the 'immediate public health crisis dissipated' is a difficult factual question inappropriate for resolution at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Claim dismissed.
Governor Walz — DISMISSED
Because the only claims Stewart asserted against Governor Walz were the due process and equal protection claims — both dismissed — Walz was removed as a defendant. The court noted that this made moot the separate question of whether Walz was a proper defendant at all.
First Amendment retaliation (Count IV) — SURVIVES
To state a First Amendment retaliation claim, a public employee must plausibly allege: (1) protected speech activity; (2) an adverse employment action; and (3) that the protected speech was a 'substantial or motivating factor' in the adverse action. The parties did not dispute that unpaid suspension and termination constituted adverse employment actions.
On protected speech: The court found Stewart plausibly alleged that his email addressed matters of public concern — a prerequisite for First Amendment protection for public employees. Speech criticizing public officials and the administration of government policies lies at the heart of protected public-concern speech. Stewart's email criticized the policy as immoral, coercive, and demoralizing; claimed it contributed to societal polarization; and called Governor Walz's conduct 'shameful.' The court assessed the content, form, and context of the email and found these allegations plausible.
On causation: The court found it plausible that the email was a substantial or motivating factor in the termination. At least two disciplinary letters and the proposed discharge letter from President Rogers specifically cited the email as a basis for disciplinary action.
On which defendants: The court rejected defendants' argument that only President Rogers, as the sole decisionmaker, could be a proper defendant. The court found that Dr. Kingston and Ms. Vichorek attended disciplinary hearings and were personally involved in the proceedings; all LSC defendants communicated with Stewart about the email and the college's decisions. Taking those allegations as true, all four college official defendants (Rogers, Kingston, Vichorek, and Anderson) remain in the case. Ms. Anderson was substituted for the prior Vice President of Administration, Alan Finlayson, under a legal rule providing for automatic substitution of a public official's successor.
First Amendment unconstitutional conditions (Count V) — DISMISSED
An unconstitutional condition occurs when the government requires someone to surrender a constitutional right in exchange for a government benefit, including continued employment. The court found this claim did not apply because no defendant told Stewart he had to give up his speech rights to keep his job before he sent the email. Ms. Vichorek never instructed him not to use his work email or contact students. The consequences he faced arose only after he sent the email — constituting retaliation (covered by Count IV), not an unconstitutional condition imposed in advance.
Disposition
Motion to Dismiss granted as to Counts I, II, III, and V; denied as to Count IV. Governor Walz dismissed. The case proceeds on the First Amendment retaliation claim against defendants Rogers, Kingston, Vichorek, and Anderson.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 16-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.