was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, we “look first to decisions of the Supreme Court, then to decisions of this court and other courts within our circuit, and finally to decisions of other circuits.” Chappel, 131 F.3d at 579. No decisions from the Supreme Court, our circuit, or any other court, clearly establish that Plaintiffs speech in the instant case was constitutionally protected so that Defendants would have understood that their disciplinary action violated Plaintiffs rights. Thus, Defendants may be entitled to qualified immunity, and this could provide yet another basis for concluding that Plaintiff has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claim. See Cohen v. San Bernardino Valley Coll., 92 F.3d 968, 972-73 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Having found.that Plaintiff has failed to
recognizing right of this court to regulate and discipline members of the bar holding that the failure to rehire a teacher in the state college system who had testified before the texas legislature in opposition to a position taken by the regents was a violation of the first amendment holding that the defendant community college board of trustees was immune from the plaintiffteachers  1983 suit for violation of his first amendment rights in relation to the discipline that the teacher received for responding to a students sexual harassment claim because the defendants could not have reasonably known that the discipline violated an established right holding that the authority of the supreme court to discipline judges and members of the bar is plenary holding that a seventeenyearold student lacked the capacity to consent to engage in sexual conduct with a teacher and consequently her allegations of a seeminglyconsensual sexual relationship with the teacher were sufficient to state a  1983 claim based on a violation of substantive due process