Good riddance (and for those who missed last year's events, see this). Today's court decision (in favor of Salaita)--obviously right and predicted long ago--is no doubt the explanation. I may not get a chance to digest the opinion for a few days, but when I do, I'll post some more (if there's anything particulary interesting).
(Thanks to Jason Stanley for the tip on the court decision.)
ADDENDUM: Well, I read a good chunk of the opinion, it is well-done and devastating for the university: the breach of contract claim survives, the promissory estoppel claims survives (though in the end, Salaita can only prevail on one or the other--the breach of contract is the better claim, and he will prevail on it), and the claimed violation of his First Amendment rights survives the motion to dismiss. For my earlier discussions, see this (on the constitutional issues) and this (on the contractual ones). This is a good day for the American justice system and a bad day for the miscreants at the University of Illinois. I predict a settlement before 2015 is over, and I now would not be surprised if it included reinstatement of Salaita (that's how bad the court's decision is for the University).
ANOTHER: The CHE headline misdescribes the court decision (the article does not). On a motion to dismiss, the only question is whether, taking the facts as alleged by the plaintiff, they state legal causes of action. Thus, the court asked the question: if the facts are as Salaita alleges, does he have a valid breach of contract claim, and the court gave that a resoundingly affirmative answer (coming pretty close to ridiculing the university's position that there wasn't really a contract). The breach of contract and the First Amendment claims are Salaita's most potent in terms of damages. It was obviously agreed in advance that Chancellor Wise would step down given an adverse decision, presumably because the University knows that the outrageousness of her conduct will be exposed to view once discovery begins and presumably also thinking that it will be easier to settle with Salaita once they are rid of the University official who said, "We will not hire him." My bet is that, in order to block discovery, which would throw open to public view the bad behavior of many actors behind the scenes, and in order to avoid the damages attached to losing the breach of contract and First Amendment claims (which they would almost certainly lose, and for which the damages could easily amount to compensation for his entire career, i.e., 35 years of salary and benefits, plus additional damages for the constitutional claims), the University will now try to reach a settlement in which he is reinstated (subject to some face-saving terms for the University, like Salaita promising not to scare students in the classroom), and compensation is limited to damages for the last year plus his attorney fees. This is a very good day for tenure, for contracts, and for free speech.
AUGUST 10 UPDATE: Rob Kar, a law professor at the University of Illinois, has a good discussion of the contract law issues.