Update: Kevin O’Brien, writing for the University of Denver’s legal blog, The Race to the Bottom, is just as stumped by Judge Naves’ decision as the Denver Post‘s legal analyst.

What is remarkable about the judge’s decision is that it adopted almost every argument proffered by CU’s legal briefs. Reading today’s trial decision felt like I was re-reading the CU briefs. For example, by not awarding even front pay in lieu of reinstatement, Judge Naves effectively blocked an award of attorney fees to Churchill on the basis that the $1 award represents a Pyhrric victory invalidating the award of attoreny fees under existing case law (in the event his quasi-judicial immunity ruling in favor of CU is overturned and the reinstatement and front-pay issues are no longer moot).

O’Brien also offers this, which I hadn’t even considered:

[I]t is clear today that Judge Naves’ ostensibly one-sided decision will raise the issue on whether he should have recused himself from hearing the case based upon the appearance of a conflict of interest since he is a CU law school alumnus.

That’s an interesting point to consider, although as O’Brien goes on to make clear, Naves’ alumni status alone does not constitute a “serious, objective risk of actual bias.” Anyway, The Race to the Bottom promises to “dissect” Naves’ ruling on its legal merits over the next few weeks, which should be required reading for anyone interested in the case.

Update II: Michael Roberts has a piece in for Westword (which kindly mentions me) and has this salient point to offer:

On the surface, this judgment makes little sense, since Naves could have come to this conclusion without even going through the motions of a trial.

Update III: The New York Times story also ends with a quote from Scott Robinson, noting the “extraordinary” nature of Naves’ ruling.

Update IV: There’s so much good stuff in The Race to the Bottom piece. Here’s another tidbit:

In effect, Judge Naves has, unless reversed on appeal, sanitized CU of the taint of the jury’s decision that CU terminated him not for research misconduct, but for expressing his first amendment rights in violation of the Constitution. Thus, not only is Churchill not entitled to the $1 jury award and the vindication the award represented, but his attorneys cannot seek reimbursement of their attorney fees conjectured to be over $1,000,000 since Churchill did not prevail in his Section 1983 first amendment claim. Most of this cost would never have been incurred by Churchill and his attorneys (or, for that matter, the jury’s time in sitting through a month long trial) had the issue of quasi-judicial immunity been determined before trial by Judge Naves through a motion for summary judgment that as a matter of law CU would prevail.

Note that last piece. As Michael Roberts pointed out above, essentially the whole trial was a charade. And a particularly vicious one as arranged by Naves, in that he seems to have let it continue solely to squander David Lane and Ward Churchill’s time and resources.

Update V: The Colorado Independent has a GREAT piece up on their site about Naves’ ruling, entitled “Judge rules against Churchill, grants CU Board odd absolutist powers”.

The jury decided that Churchill was in fact fired because talk radio hosts didn’t like what he wrote about the 9/11 attacks and because neither did GOP Gov. Bill Owens and neither did the CU Board of Regents — or at least that the Board didn’t think Churchill’s opinions were worth defending in the name of academic freedom and freedom of expression in general. Yesterday’s ruling suggests Judge Naves also places little value on Ward Churchill’s right to free expression, regurgitating in the ruling the defeated arguments of the state. And, not to be outdone, the Denver Post this morning jumps on board, regurgitating the regurgitations of the bench, reporting as fact in the second paragraph of its story the specious allegations of academic misconduct at the heart of the trial and that the state failed to substantiate for the jury.

Update VI: Democracy Now offers this in today’s show:

In Denver, a judge has denied former University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill’s bid to return to his old job despite a jury’s finding he was wrongfully dismissed. Churchill sued the school after he was fired from a tenured position on charges of research misconduct. But Churchill maintains that the allegations were a pretext to remove him for his political beliefs. In April, a jury ruled in Churchill’s favor and ordered the school to pay his attorney fees. But on Tuesday, Chief Judge Larry Naves of Denver District Court said university officials are legally protected from Churchill’s bid to reverse his firing because they were acting as judicial officers. Churchill says he plans to appeal. His lawyer, David Lane said: “This is judicial activism in its worst form… a jury said Ward Churchill’s free speech was violated, and yet Judge Naves goes on for almost 50 pages, saying in so many words, ‘Too bad.’”

Update VII: Even the Wall Street Journal is noting that Judge Naves’ ruling “seems a little screwy”.

Update VIII: Marc Bousquet has piece on The Chronicle Review‘s site, elegantly entitled “Colorado Judge Mugs Churchill”. (It’s also cross-posted on one of my favorite literary sites, The Valve.)

The crowing by the University of Colorado administration after the latest twist in the Churchill case illustrates this claim pretty well. Provost Phil DiStefano seems to have huffed a few lines of Hogwarts Ambiguity Powder to keep a straight face while dubbing CU’s trampling on Churchill’s academic freedom, subversion of faculty process and transparent political thuggery “a victory for faculty governance.”

He also notes Naves’ status as a CU alum.

DiStefano couldn’t have gotten his broomstick off the ground, though, without the teamwork of loyal CU alum Judge Larry J. Naves. The latter waved his wand of Dumbledorean Complexity over the jury’s verdict in order to vacate it, claiming that upon further reflection—you know, after the jury came up with a verdict he didn’t like—he believed that the Colorado regents were immune from lawsuits!

This is getting more and more interesting.

Update IX: I’ve been looking everywhere for full audio, or even a transcript, of the press conference given yesterday by David Lane, Ward Churchill’s attorney. As far as I can tell, it’s not on the internet. You can, however, hear snippets of it on yesterday’s Caplis and Silverman show, here, starting at 35:15.

Update X: From Denver’s main anti-Churchill site, Pirateballerina:

We contacted CU defense attorney Patrick O’Rourke this morning via email and learned that he intends to bill Churchill for out-of-pocket legal expenses, such as deposition transcripts, out-of-state travel, and witness fees. “We haven’t totaled those yet,” O’Rourke told us, “but those expenses will probably be significant.”

Rampant corruption, contempt for the Constitution, judicial thuggery, and now highway robbery. Seems par for course for team CU/Naves.

Update XI: I wish I could say I’m surprised about CU’s intent to bill Ward Churchill, but I’m not. CU has made it clear all along that their intent has been to not only trample Ward Churchill’s civil rights, but to completely destroy him.

I know Ward well enough to know that that’s not possible, but also I know CU’s administration well enough to know that they’d love nothing more.

Update XII: Good God. Even the rightwing educational watchdog group ACTA thinks Judge Naves’ ruling is off the mark. (Via Michael Roberts at Westword.)

The judge’s decision? It gets some things right, but is also problematic. Yes, peer review is critical to shared governance, academic autonomy, and professional standards. Yes, to reinstate Churchill would send an awful message to students — that academic standards don’t matter. But is the authority of trustees in fact comparable to that of judges here, as the opinion says? I am not so sure.

That’s pretty rich, in that ACTA was responsible for a portion of the drummed-up political pressure brought to bear on the University of Colorado to fire Churchill.

Update XIII: CU’s intent bill to Ward Churchill for out-of-pocket expenses is now in the Denver Post:

The University of Colorado will bill Ward Churchill for more than $10,000 in out-of-pocket costs the school incurred while defending against his wrongful termination suit, the university’s lawyer said today.

Update XIV: And from the Boulder Daily Camera:

CU attorney Patrick O’Rourke said he plans to file for recovery of those costs — which include flying witnesses in and out of Colorado and creating deposition transcripts — over the next 15 days and said the amount would be in the “five figures” and likely just shy of $50,000.

This is just conjecture, but it doesn’t seem impossible to me that this could be an attempt by CU to blackmail Ward Churchill out of filing an appeal. Right? Play up the amount of money they’ll be billing him in the local media, and then follow it with a phone call letting him know that they’ll rip up the invoice if he’ll only agree not to appeal. Hell, given what we’ve seen from CU so far, a little extortion hardly seems farfetched.