KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. In late 2019, William Ashford (“Ashford”), a police officer employed by the University of Michigan-Dearborn (“UM-D”), spoke with a reporter at The Detroit Times about his concerns that the UM-D police department was mishandling a student’s allegation that one of her professors had sexually assaulted her. After his supervisors at the University, including then-Vice Chancellor Jeffrey Evans (“Evans”) and UM-D Police Chief Gary Gorski (“Gorski”), learned that he had taken his thoughts about the case to the media, they launched an inquiry into his actions in November 2019. At the conclusion of their investigation, UM-D suspended Ashford for ten days without pay. Ashford sued UM-D, the University of Michigan, Evans (in his individual and official capacities) and Gorski (in his individual and official capacities), bringing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First Amendment claim¹ that he had been unconstitutionally retaliated against for engaging in protected speech. Ashford sought to have the suspension removed from his employment record, as well as monetary damages.

The defendants argued in a motion for summary judgment that Ashford’s suit against the university and its officers in their official capacities was barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, and that the officers in their individual capacities were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied their motion with respect to both sovereign and qualified immunity. In this interlocutory appeal, the defendants ask this court to reverse the district court’s decision. We AFFIRM the district court’s ruling on sovereign and qualified immunity.

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. After being arrested for public intoxication, Timmy Mosier resisted being escorted to the booking area of the Crockett County Jail. In response, Crockett County Deputy Joseph Evans pulled Mosier to the ground, which he hit head-first. Mosier brought federal civil-rights and state-law tort claims against Evans and Crockett County. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the civil-rights claims and their partial motion to dismiss the negligence claims. Mosier argues that the district court erred in granting each of those motions. For the reasons below, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND.