The Kentucky Law dean fight has reached the stage where somebody sues. Back in April, the whole mess was already a dumpster fire as a “substantial majority of the faculty” told those running the dean search that Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove was an unacceptable candidate, lacking the academic bona fides 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 sort of like peer review.
It was… not convincing.
Yesterday, Professor Ramsi Woodcock filed suit in the Eastern District of Kentucky to stop the appointment. That is, of course, the court that Judge Van Tatenhove departs to take the Kentucky deanship. After swift recusals from the rest of the district bench, the case has been temporarily assigned to Jeffrey Sutton — the Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit — for reassignment.
AI Is Reshaping Legal Practice—But Tools Aren’t The Real Differentiator.
Explore the mindset, cultural shifts, and training strategies that define the AI‑savvy lawyer, revealing why human judgment, standardized competence, and integrated learning—not technology alone—will shape the future of the profession.
There’s a fitting irony that the validity of the university’s spin that “hundreds of [Van Tatenhove’s] judicial opinions have been effectively peer-reviewed by the Sixth Circuit with an affirmation rate above 80%,” has now landed at the Sixth Circuit.
Woodcock’s primary argument is a First Amendment expressive association claim, and the association in question is peer review itself:
The competence of no other professional is derivative of his association with other professionals in this way. A football player may be just as good at tackling whether he has been picked for the team or not. A surgeon may be just as good at surgery whether he is licensed or not. If the football player is cut or the surgeon deprived of his license, he is merely prevented from practicing his art. But a scholar stripped of membership in a community of scholars stops being able to perform at all.
Because a dean evaluates faculty scholarship, the argument runs, installing a dean the faculty deemed unqualified to evaluate scholarship “dilutes” the faculty’s collective message that their work is peer reviewed. Woodcock goes further, arguing that he’s actually compelled to broadcast the opposite message every time he uploads a paper to SSRN.
AI Built for Litigation. Verified by Design.
Grounded in authoritative content and verified at every step, Protégé is the only legal AI tool that delivers work you can trust—without exception.
Woodcock is currently suspended from teaching for other reasons. A UK spokesperson responded to this filing by saying, “Interestingly, if Professor Woodcock had spent his time responding to the serious allegations regarding his conduct in a timely manner, rather than filing frivolous lawsuits without merit, his case would have long since been resolved.”
Not for nothing, but when an official statement digs into the bitchy bag for an “interestingly” like that, it suggests a litigant more interested in distractions than substance.
The professor also brings a tortious interference claim based upon 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 objection of the faculty. ABA Standards Interp. 203-1, Ex. 19. The ABA further requires that a dean be a tenured member of the faculty. Id. at Standard 203(b). In effective acknowledgment of Van Tatenhove’s lack of a scholarly record, the University has said that it will not put Van Tatenhove up for tenure. Ex. 14 at 7. The ABA provides an exception to these rules for “good cause” or in “extraordinary circumstances”. Ex. 19. But the faculty approved three other University-selected finalists who, unlike Van Tatenhove, met the qualification for the dean role and on information and belief the University did not make offers to any of them before selecting Van Tatenhove. Ex. 8; Woodcock Decl. ¶ 22. (One of the other finalists has said that she would have accepted an offer. Ex. 28.)
What’s the “extraordinary circumstance” here? Well, it won’t be the university’s official position, but it’s who the partisan powers-that-be wanted seems to be the answer. Republican politicians praised the appointment of Van Tatenhove, a former Mitch McConnell aide, while the governor has thrown side eye on the decision. University administration removed the potential stumbling block of the faculty senate, having dissolved the council permanently in 2024 — a move generally reserved for the Emperor from Star Wars. The rules had also been designed to strip the board of trustees of hiring authority, vesting it instead in the administrators. That rule has since been changed because of this hiring. Everything leading up to the selection was set up to vest decision making in the fewest — and most easily lobbied — hands possible.
As for the problems this might cause with the ABA accreditation process, DiPaola told a committee meeting it would be “a number of years before we’re reviewed again by the ABA.” Yes, the “meh, we’ve got a long time until the cops even notice” defense never fails. Though maybe they’re banking on a future Republican governor joining other states in rejecting ABA accreditation.
Which is probably how this ends, with the state of Kentucky recusing itself right out of the ABA’s rules.
Earlier: Kentucky Law School’s Dean Fight 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 on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.