University of Pennsylvania Law Professor Amy Wax has taken her long-running legal battle with her employer to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, asking the federal appellate court to revive her dismissed discrimination lawsuit against the Ivy League institution. Wax contends that a lower court wrongly dismissed her claims after she was suspended with half pay following controversial public statements about race and culture. Her appeal asserts that the trial judge misapplied civil rights law and improperly resolved contested facts in favor of Penn.
Wax’s appeal, filed on January 15, 2026, targets the August 2025 dismissal of her federal civil rights complaint by Senior U.S. District Judge Timothy Savage, who found her claims of discrimination and retaliation “implausible.” The professor argues to the Third Circuit that the district court improperly relied on Penn’s version of events and failed to credit her well-pled allegations as true, a basic federal pleading standard.
The dispute stems from disciplinary actions taken by Penn in October 2024 after Wax made a series of controversial statements about race, immigration, and academic performance that sparked widespread criticism from students, faculty, and the media. These sanctions included a one-year suspension from teaching with half pay and the loss of her named chair at the Carey Law School, but she retained her tenured status.
Wax’s original lawsuit, filed in January 2025, alleged the university violated her tenure rights, discriminated based on race and viewpoint, and applied a double standard in enforcing disciplinary policies. She has maintained that similar discipline was not imposed on other faculty members with different viewpoints, which she claims reflects a race-based and viewpoint-based double standard.
The federal court’s dismissal left Wax’s case without the ability to refile the same federal claims, prompting her appeal. A separate state lawsuit alleging breaches of academic freedom and contract remains on hold pending the outcome of the federal appeal.
The case has already drawn national attention as a flashpoint in debates over free speech on campus and academic freedom. Supporters of Wax argue that universities should protect faculty members’ ability to voice controversial viewpoints without fear of career-damaging discipline. Critics counter that her remarks created a hostile environment and that the university acted appropriately to uphold standards of nondiscrimination.
The Third Circuit’s decision to hear arguments and ultimately rule on Wax’s appeal could have implications beyond her individual case, potentially shaping how courts assess claims of discrimination and retaliation against professors in academic settings. The appeal underscores ongoing tensions between academic freedom, free speech principles, and institutional policies on diversity and inclusion.
