According to the Denver Post, Churchill’s attorneys are promising to sue if the university takes any action.
I have not yet read the report, but if its finding are limited to academic misconduct unrelated to his expressive activities, then it is hard to see Churchill prevailing in his suit. While it is certainly true that Churchill’s expressive activities (such as comparing the 9/11 victims to Adolf Eichmann) put him under the public microscope; it is not true that the university is necessarily limited in its ability to punish him for other forms of misconduct. When a person places himself in the public eye by making inflammatory public comments, critical scrutiny is inevitable. It was Churchill’s responsibility to conduct himself in a manner that could survive that scrutiny. It is not the university’s responsibility to look the other way when real misconduct is apparent. So long as the university treats him in the same way that it treats other professors who are guilty of similar misconduct, it should not face legal liability.
Churchill’s speech is protected, but it is not a get-out-of jail-free card for his other actions.