Embattled UPenn Law Prof. Amy Wax Loses Bid To Pause Sanctions Ahead of Trial

Embattled UPenn Law Prof. Amy Wax Loses Bid To Pause Sanctions Ahead of Trial

Law Professor Amy Wax has suffered a setback in her court battle against the University of Pennsylvania over the sanctions imposed on her by the school for expressing her conservative views.

Earlier this week, Federal District Court Judge Timothy Savage denied her request to block the sanctions while the case goes forward. “Wax will not suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction,” the judge concluded.

Wax sued UPenn in January after it refused to lift the sanctions imposed on her last fall after more than two years of disciplinary proceedings against the award-winning, tenured law professor.

Her punishment included suspension for one year at half pay, loss of her named chair, and public reprimand—though she was not fired and did not lose tenure.

Because Wax had already begun teaching for the 2024-2025 academic year, the one-year suspension was delayed until July 1, 2025 and will now go into effect.

Wax’s travails with the university began in 2017, after she triggered the woke campus mob by unapologetically expressing traditional American values in an op-ed.

We covered them here:

• UPenn Asks Court to Dismiss Professor Amy Wax’s Racial Discrimination Lawsuit
• Prof. Amy Wax Sues UPenn Over Race-Based Discriminatory Speech Policy
• Embattled Law Prof. Amy Wax to UPenn: Lift Sanctions or I’ll See You in Court
• Report: UPenn To Sanction Dissident Law Professor Amy Wax
• Report: Embattled UPenn Law Prof. Amy Wax Appealing Hearing Board Sanctions Quietly Recommended Over The Summer
• House Committee Demands U Penn Antisemitism Records, Decries Hypocritical Mistreatment Of Prof. Amy Wax
• Embattled UPenn Law Prof Amy Wax Sets the Record Straight: “mainstream media coverage has been agenda-driven”
• It “Sucks” That Prof. Amy Wax Still Employed, U Penn Law Dean Declared On Recently Released 2019 Audio
• Tables Turned: Prof. Amy Wax, Charged With Wrongthink, Files Counter-Grievance Against U Penn Law Dean
• U Penn Law Prof. Amy Wax Seeks Dismissal Of University Disciplinary Proceedings: “Premature, Unwarranted, and Prejudicial”
• How A Weak Penn Law Dean Weaponized Student Hurt Feelings Against Dissident Prof. Amy Wax

As soon as the attacks against her started, Wax fought back even harder, persistently publicly commenting on hot-button topics such as the negative consequences of affirmative action and immigration restrictions. Her remarks escalated student protests and a petition for her removal.

Her comments that America would be better off “with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration”—because Asian immigrants support the Democrat party responsible for ruining the country—prompted swift condemnation from the dean—and finally gave him the pretext to begin proceedings to terminate her.

Those proceedings begun in 2022 dragged on relentlessly—even as Wax battled cancer—culminating in the school’s decision last September to sanction her “for a major infraction of the university’s behavioral standards.”

The school said Wax’s “discriminatory and disrespectful statements to specific targeted racial, national, ethnic, sexual orientation, and gender groups with which our students and colleagues identify” created “an unequal learning environment.”

In her lawsuit filed in January, Wax’s lawyers allege it was UPenn that discriminated based on race and violated core principles of the First Amendment.

Wax also alleges the university’s “kangaroo-court-like” disciplinary procedures—initiated by a Dean who publicly stated that it “sucks” that she still worked at the school—violated its contract with her.

In March, the university asked the court to dismiss the case.

Wax’s lawyers then filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to block the sanctions. They argued that UPenn’s actions caused ongoing harm to her reputation and violated her civil rights.

Following oral argument on June 16, the court disagreed. “Wax has failed to show that harm to her reputation is imminent. What effect the sanctions may have on her reputation has already occurred. She has been publicly disciplined and reprimanded. The sanctions have been publicized. Her suspension was announced.  An injunction will not erase that record,” Judge Savage wrote.

“Wax’s claimed harm to her career is speculative,” the court also concluded.

Judge Savage rejected Wax’s argument that UPenn violated her constitutional rights: “We reiterate that this is not a First Amendment case. It is a breach of contract case. Wax’s efforts to characterize it otherwise are of no avail.”

“Wax also argues she is harmed by the suspension because it will prevent her from teaching for a year,” the judge continued. “That is not irreparable harm. She will lose half her salary. Her harm is monetary.”

“Wax fails to link the sanctions to any clearly defined, non-monetary harm. Because she has not met her burden on the threshold factor of irreparable harm, we need not address the remaining factors in the preliminary injunction analysis.”

While monetary harm doesn’t meet the legal standard to grant a preliminary injunction, for Amy Wax, the harm is subtantial. Here in this interview with Ann Coulter [4:48], she describes the real-life impact: The loss of summer pay over time, she estimates, will be close to half a million dollars. “That is a lot of money,” says Wax. “Certainly it is to me.”

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.