Penn Law’s Amy Wax Appeals to Third Circuit: Fighting to Revive Racial Discrimination Claims Against UPenn
In a bold escalation of her battle against perceived campus censorship, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School professor Amy Wax has filed an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to overturn a federal judge’s dismissal of her explosive discrimination lawsuit. This move reignites the fiery debate over free speech boundaries in elite academia, with Wax claiming her sanctions stem from racial bias rather than her provocative statements.
The Amy Wax Penn lawsuit has captivated legal watchers since its filing, blending Amy Wax discrimination appeal with Third Circuit appeal drama. As Penn Law sanctions intensify scrutiny on academic free speech, racial discrimination claims against universities like UPenn underscore a growing rift in higher education. Wax’s push for revival spotlights how racial discrimination claims can shield—or weaponize—controversial voices, drawing parallels to broader U.S. culture wars.
Wax’s Controversial History at Penn: From Podcasts to Sanctions
Amy Wax, a tenured professor since 1987 and a vocal conservative voice, has long stirred controversy at Penn Carey Law. Her troubles escalated in 2017 with a podcast alongside economist Glenn Loury, where she remarked, “On average, blacks have lower cognitive ability than whites,” and claimed she’d never seen a Black student graduate in the top quarter of her class. These comments, plus classroom quips like telling a Black student they benefited from affirmative action and emails urging minorities to alter behaviors for equality, drew faculty ire.
By 2023, a faculty committee investigated Wax for “flagrant unprofessional conduct,” citing a pattern of derogatory remarks toward minorities, including assertions that crime is “overwhelmingly a black problem.” In September 2024, Penn imposed sanctions: a one-year suspension at half pay for 2025-26, loss of her named chair, perpetual forfeiture of summer pay, a public reprimand, office relocation outside law school buildings, and bans on advising or committees.
Wax decried these as retaliation for her views, not unprofessionalism, setting the stage for her January 2025 lawsuit.
The Lawsuit’s Core Allegations: Racial Double Standards and Free Speech
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Wax’s 53-page complaint accused UPenn of violating Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the First Amendment, and her tenure contract. She alleged the university’s speech policies discriminate by race, punishing white speakers harsher than minorities for similar content—labeling it a “racist double standard.”
Under Title VI, Wax claimed the policies create a hostile environment for white and Jewish individuals, jeopardizing federal funding. Title VII charges targeted employment discrimination, arguing her race motivated the sanctions. First Amendment violations stemmed from viewpoint discrimination based on “perceived harm” to listeners. Breach of contract cited the Faculty Handbook’s academic freedom promises, including due process lapses like denied health accommodations during hearings.
Wax pointed to examples: Penn allegedly ignored racist tweets by minority faculty while swift on hers, and the investigation report by Prof. Eduardo Peñalver was biased, per her team.
District Court Dismissal: Judge Savage’s Scathing Rejection
On August 28, 2025, U.S. District Judge Timothy Savage dismissed the federal claims with prejudice in a 52-page opinion, ruling Wax failed to show discrimination tied to protected classes. “Wax does not allege facts showing she was discriminated against because she was speaking on behalf of any protected class. She did not associate with any person or persons who were in a protected class. She did not support any protected class,” Savage wrote.
State law claims were dismissed without prejudice, allowing refiling in state court. A Penn spokesperson declined comment, but the ruling echoed the university’s defense that sanctions addressed conduct, not speech.
Public Backlash and Expert Takes: A Polarized Response
Reactions split sharply along ideological lines. Conservative outlets like Legal Insurrection cheered the appeal as a stand against “woke” censorship, with one post noting, “UPenn Law Prof. Amy Wax… will appeal her discrimination case to the Third Circuit. Good.” The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has long backed Wax, warning of eroding academic freedom at Penn.
Critics panned the suit. Above the Law called it a “shimmering ball of disaster,” arguing the “minor sanctions” were justified for unprofessionalism. University of Chicago’s Brian Leiter dismissed it outright, per TaxProf Blog coverage. Reuters noted the case’s rarity in challenging tenure protections.
On X and LinkedIn, hashtags like #AcademicFreedom trended briefly, with users decrying “reverse racism” versus calls for accountability in diverse classrooms.
Why This Appeals to American Eyes: Academia’s Culture Clash
For U.S. readers, the Amy Wax discrimination appeal transcends one professor—it’s a microcosm of campus politics roiling higher ed. With Ivy League scandals fueling national debates, this tests free speech limits amid DEI initiatives, potentially swaying enrollment and donations in battleground states.
Economically, sanctions like pay cuts highlight tenure’s fragility, worrying mid-career academics nationwide. Politically, it bolsters conservative critiques of “cancel culture,” aligning with 2025 pushes for federal probes into university bias. Technologically, it spotlights AI tools in speech monitoring, raising privacy flags for educators.
Lifestyle impacts? Parents eyeing elite schools weigh ideological climates, while professionals navigate similar speech minefields in workplaces, underscoring the need for clear boundaries in polarized America.
Third Circuit’s Verdict: High Stakes for Wax and Beyond
Wax’s September 26, 2025, notice of appeal thrusts her claims back into federal spotlight, with briefing to follow. Success could reinstate the suit, forcing Penn to defend its policies and awarding damages; failure might end her federal bid, pushing state claims.
Outlook? Legal experts predict a tough road—Third Circuit precedents favor universities on speech—but Wax’s team eyes reversal on pleading standards. This saga could catalyze reforms, urging clearer academic codes amid rising suits. As racial discrimination claims evolve, the Amy Wax Penn lawsuit reminds us: In academia’s arena, words wield power, and appeals may yet rewrite the rules.
The Third Circuit appeal saga, intertwined with Penn Law sanctions and academic free speech battles, signals deeper racial discrimination claims reckonings ahead.
By Sam Michael
September 27, 2025
Follow us and subscribe for push notifications to stay ahead of breaking U.S. legal and education news—your edge in the culture wars!
Amy Wax discrimination appeal, Penn Law lawsuit, Third Circuit appeal, academic free speech, racial discrimination claims, UPenn sanctions, Title VII violation, First Amendment academia, tenure rights dispute, campus censorship 2025