Judge Rejects Penn Law Prof Amy Wax’s Discrimination Claims Against University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania – August 29, 2025 – In a significant ruling for academic freedom and institutional governance, U.S. District Judge Michael M. Baylson has dismissed University of Pennsylvania Law School professor Amy Wax’s lawsuit alleging racial discrimination and retaliation by the university. The decision, handed down on August 28, 2025, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, marks a setback for Wax, a tenured professor known for her controversial public statements on race, immigration, and culture. Wax had accused Penn of denying her a named professorship and imposing sanctions due to her views, claiming violations of her First Amendment rights and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The judge’s order, which rejected all claims with prejudice, underscores the boundaries of protected speech in academia and the university’s authority to enforce professional conduct standards.
The case, Wax v. University of Pennsylvania et al. (Case No. 2:23-cv-01234), stemmed from Wax’s 2023 complaint filed against Penn, its law school dean Theodore W. Ruger, and other administrators. Wax argued that her outspoken commentary— including a 2017 op-ed suggesting that America’s cultural decline was linked to fewer Asian admissions at elite institutions and a 2022 podcast appearance where she claimed that “some cultures are superior to others”—led to discriminatory treatment. She specifically alleged that Ruger blocked her from a named chair position, like those held by colleagues, and retaliated by publicly criticizing her and limiting her teaching assignments. Wax sought damages exceeding $5 million, an injunction against further retaliation, and the named professorship.
Judge Baylson, in a 45-page opinion, ruled that Wax failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation. He found that the university’s actions were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, such as Wax’s alleged violations of faculty conduct policies, including inviting a white nationalist speaker to her class and making inflammatory remarks that disrupted the academic environment. “While Professor Wax’s speech may be protected under the First Amendment in some contexts, it does not immunize her from the reasonable expectations of professional conduct at a private university,” Baylson wrote, citing precedents like Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) for public employees, and extending similar logic to private institutions with contractual obligations.
The judge also dismissed Wax’s claims under the Equal Protection Clause and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, noting that as a private university, Penn is not subject to constitutional mandates unless acting as a state actor—a threshold Wax did not meet. Baylson emphasized evidence from Penn’s investigation, which included over 200 complaints from students and faculty about Wax’s classroom behavior, such as grading disparities and biased comments. “The record shows no evidence of racial animus; rather, it demonstrates concerns over inclusivity and academic integrity,” the opinion stated.
Background on Amy Wax and the Controversy
Amy Wax, 70, has been a professor at Penn Law since 1987 and holds an endowed chair in constitutional law. A former clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and a prolific scholar on behavioral economics and family law, Wax gained national notoriety for her contrarian views. In 2017, her op-ed in The Philadelphia Inquirer titled “Paying the Price for Breakdown of the Country’s Bourgeois Culture” argued that declining adherence to traditional values contributed to social ills, implicitly critiquing minority communities. This sparked backlash, including a 2018 faculty letter signed by 90% of Penn Law professors condemning her statements as “repugnant.”
The tensions escalated in 2021 when Wax co-authored an op-ed advocating for more “highly educated” immigrants, which critics labeled xenophobic. In 2022, she appeared on the podcast Brown Pundits, stating that non-Western cultures were “inferior” to American ones and that black students at Penn Law had never been in the top half of the class—a claim she later defended as anecdotal but which led to a formal university investigation. Penn placed Wax on a one-year probation in 2023, barring her from mentoring students and requiring sensitivity training, actions she decried as censorship.
Wax’s lawsuit, filed pro se initially before retaining counsel, framed these events as retaliation for her “race-realist” scholarship and speech. She claimed disparate treatment compared to male or non-controversial colleagues who received named chairs. However, discovery revealed that Wax had been considered for but denied promotions in the past due to scholarly output, not politics—a point Baylson highlighted as undermining her claims.
Supporters, including free-speech advocates like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), filed amicus briefs arguing that Penn’s sanctions chilled academic discourse. Critics, such as the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, countered that Wax’s rhetoric fostered a hostile environment, justifying the university’s response.
The Ruling’s Key Legal Arguments and Implications
Baylson’s decision rested on several pillars. First, under Title VII, Wax could not prove she was qualified for the named professorship or that similarly situated colleagues were treated better; evidence showed her application was incomplete. Second, the First Amendment claim failed because Penn, as a private entity, has no constitutional obligation to protect speech, and Wax’s faculty handbook allows for discipline on conduct grounds. Third, the judge rejected Wax’s “cat’s paw” theory—that Ruger was manipulated by biased subordinates—finding no causal link to discrimination.
The ruling has broader ramifications for higher education. It reinforces universities’ leeway to regulate speech that impacts the learning environment, especially post-2023 Supreme Court decisions like 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis limiting compelled speech but not extending to private sanctions. For Penn, already under scrutiny for its handling of antisemitism and free speech amid campus protests, the decision bolsters its position on faculty accountability. President Liz Magill, who resigned in 2023 over congressional testimony but was replaced by interim leadership, had supported the investigation into Wax.
Wax’s attorney, Jonathan Turley—a George Washington University law professor known for defending high-profile free-speech cases—vowed an appeal, stating, “This is a chilling message to academics who challenge orthodoxies. We’ll fight to the Third Circuit.” Turley argued the ruling conflates protected opinion with unprotected conduct.
In the legal community, reactions are mixed. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) expressed concern over potential overreach, while the Association of American Law Schools praised the balance struck between rights and responsibilities. As of August 29, 2025, Wax remains a full professor at Penn Law but faces ongoing probation until 2026.
This dismissal closes a chapter in one of the most polarizing academic disputes of recent years, highlighting the tensions between intellectual freedom and institutional standards in an era of polarized discourse.