Prominent law professor Amy Wax is asking a federal appeals court to revive her discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against the University of Pennsylvania, arguing that a lower court wrongly dismissed her claims and failed to properly consider disputed facts.
Wax filed her appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, seeking to overturn an August 2025 ruling that dismissed her federal civil rights case. The lawsuit stems from disciplinary actions taken by the university following a series of controversial public statements Wax made about race, immigration, and culture.
Background of the Dispute
Wax, a tenured professor at Penn’s Carey Law School, has long been a polarizing figure in academic and legal circles. Over several years, her remarks on race and diversity drew criticism from students, faculty members, and university leadership. Penn ultimately conducted an internal investigation into her conduct and concluded that some of her statements were discriminatory and harmful to the learning environment.
As a result, the university imposed sanctions in October 2024, including suspending Wax from teaching duties for one year and reducing her pay by half. Penn administrators maintained that the discipline was necessary to uphold institutional values and protect students from discriminatory conduct.
Wax strongly disputes those findings. In January 2025, she filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the university punished her because of her race and political viewpoints, in violation of federal civil rights laws and constitutional protections.
Lower Court Dismissal
A federal judge in Philadelphia dismissed Wax’s lawsuit in 2025, ruling that her allegations of racial discrimination and retaliation were implausible based on the facts presented. The court found that Penn had articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its disciplinary actions and that Wax failed to plausibly allege that similarly situated professors were treated more favorably.
The judge also concluded that Wax’s claims did not meet the legal threshold required to move forward, emphasizing that disagreement with university policy enforcement does not automatically amount to unlawful discrimination.
Arguments on Appeal
In her appeal, Wax argues that the district court improperly resolved factual disputes at the pleading stage, rather than allowing the case to proceed to discovery. Her legal team contends that the court accepted Penn’s version of events while discounting her allegations, which they say is inconsistent with federal pleading standards.
Wax asserts that Penn applied its policies selectively and punished her more harshly than other faculty members who engaged in controversial speech. According to the appeal, this allegedly reflects a race-based and viewpoint-based double standard that should be examined by a jury.
Her attorneys also argue that the disciplinary measures constituted retaliation for her protected speech, raising significant First Amendment and academic freedom concerns that extend beyond her individual case.
Broader Implications for Academic Freedom
The case has drawn national attention due to its potential implications for academic freedom, faculty discipline, and free speech on college campuses. Supporters of Wax argue that universities are increasingly policing speech in ways that suppress dissenting viewpoints, particularly on sensitive political and social issues.
Critics, however, maintain that academic freedom does not shield faculty from accountability when speech undermines equal access to education or creates a hostile environment for students. Penn has consistently stated that its actions were based on conduct, not ideology or race.
Related State Court Litigation
In addition to her federal appeal, Wax has filed a separate lawsuit in Pennsylvania state court alleging that Penn violated contractual and academic freedom protections. That case has been placed on hold while the federal appeal proceeds, as the outcome could affect overlapping legal issues.
What Comes Next
The Third Circuit will now review written briefs from both sides before deciding whether to hear oral arguments. The court could affirm the dismissal, reverse it, or send the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.
If the appeal succeeds, the lawsuit would return to the trial court, potentially allowing Wax to pursue discovery and depositions related to Penn’s disciplinary process. A reversal could also encourage similar lawsuits from faculty members challenging university discipline nationwide.
Penn officials have not publicly commented on the appeal but have previously denied any wrongdoing, stating that the university acted in accordance with established policies and legal obligations.
As the case moves forward, it is likely to remain a focal point in the ongoing national debate over free speech, discrimination law, and the limits of academic freedom in higher education.
Advance your legal career with the latest law professor litigation and higher education law developments. Explore exclusive law school faculty positions, constitutional law roles, and academic legal careers today at
LawCrossing, where top legal jobs are added daily.
