Saying the case is "moot," University of Florida professors are asking a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit that challenged a controversial conflict-of-interest policy that gave school administrators discretion over allowing faculty members to serve as expert witnesses in litigation.

The university adopted a revised policy in October that resolved the professors' concerns, according to a motion filed Wednesday by the plaintiffs.

Tenured political-science professors Sharon Austin, Michael McDonald and Daniel Smith filed the lawsuit last year after university officials denied their requests to serve as witnesses for groups fighting a 2021 state elections law in court. In denying the professors' requests, university officials said going against the executive branch of the state government was "adverse" to the school's interests.

In a scathing 74-page ruling in January, Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker blocked UF officials from enforcing the policy about professors testifying. Walker's ruling called the policy "pernicious" and a violation of faculty members' First Amendment rights. The university filed an appeal that remains pending.

The professors, who were joined by three other faculty members in the lawsuit, argued that the challenged conflict-of-interest policy unconstitutionally discriminated based on viewpoints and content and had a "chilling" effect.

Amid a national spotlight on the policy, University of Florida President Kent Fuchs ultimately allowed the professors to be paid as expert witnesses in the elections lawsuit and hastily assembled a task force to explore the conflict-of-interest issue and offer recommendations. Fuchs signed off on a revised policy stating there is a "strong presumption" that the university will approve faculty or staff requests to testify as expert witnesses.

The university on Oct. 13 adopted another revision to the policy, which now says "viewpoint and content of the employee's speech or other activity shall not be considered when assessing whether a conflict of interest exists."

The October version of the policy rectified the professors' concerns that led to the lawsuit, according to Wednesday's motion.

"Throughout this litigation, plaintiffs repeatedly emphasized that the relief they sought was a clear and unambiguous commitment by defendants that content and viewpoint could play no role in determining whether a conflict of interest or conflict of commitment existed. Defendants have finally now taken that basic and essential step," the motion said.

The motion to dismiss the case was filed "without prejudice," a legal distinction that would leave open the door to pursuing a lawsuit in the future.