West Point is facing accusations that it is openly defying a federal court order, with one legal expert accusing the U.S. Military Academy of giving a judge the "middle finger."

According to a report by The Washington Post, academy officials have continued to enforce speech restrictions on civilian professors even after a federal judge ruled last month that the policy was unconstitutional. Documents and emails obtained by the newspaper show that the academy still requires civilian faculty members to obtain approval before speaking at external events, despite the September ruling that effectively barred enforcement of its speech policy. The standoff puts a permanent judicial injunction and a standing Pentagon directive on a collision course at a federally run service academy.

University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman offered a sharp critique of the academy's conduct. "At a minimum, it is flouting or giving the middle finger to the judge," Litman told the paper.

The underlying ruling came from U.S. Judge Cathy Seibel, who determined in September that West Point's restrictions violated the First Amendment and permanently prohibited the academy from enforcing them against civilian professors. The case originated with a lawsuit filed by Tim Bakken, West Point's longest-serving law professor, who argued that the restrictions amounted to censorship of views at odds with those of Trump, the Pentagon, and the academy itself.

The policy was introduced in early 2025, following an executive order from Trump directing military academies to stop promoting ideas the administration deemed radical, divisive, or un-American. It required faculty members to obtain approval before publishing research, speaking at conferences, or appearing on podcasts. The dispute has since become a prominent test of academic freedom at the nation's service academies.

Despite the court ruling, West Point Dean Brig. Gen. Nicholas Gist subsequently issued a memo directing academy personnel to secure approval through their chain of command for any external engagements. In the memo, Gist cited a September 2025 directive from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth requiring personnel to obtain supervisory approval before any outside appearances. The memo made no reference to Seibel's ruling.

The Post also obtained an Oct. 1 email from a West Point legal official to a civilian professor stating that speaking at an outside event would require legal review and the dean's approval. Three civilian professors separately confirmed to the newspaper that the approval process remained in place.

Legal scholars who reviewed the documents said that citing a different Pentagon directive did not resolve the apparent conflict with the court order. Georgetown University law professor David Super said, "I think this is contempt of court." Eugene Fidell, a Yale military law professor, likewise concluded that West Point was in violation of the injunction. Contempt is the principal tool available to federal judges for compelling compliance with their own orders.

West Point disputed those assessments, maintaining that it was in full compliance with both the Pentagon's directives and the federal court order.

The academy faces an early November deadline to appeal Seibel's decision, and legal experts have suggested that Bakken may well have to return to court to enforce it. An appeal would move the dispute to a higher court; if the deadline passes without one, any enforcement fight would play out before Seibel, where the memos and emails reported by The Post document approval requirements that persisted after her ruling.

Source: Alternet