UVA Law Prof Describes Outrageous Behavior From Colleagues Over Case He Argued Before SCOTUS

UVA Law Prof Describes Outrageous Behavior From Colleagues Over Case He Argued Before SCOTUS

University of Virginia Law Professor Xiao Wang runs the school’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic. This fall, he argued a case before the U.S. Supreme Court having to do with discrimination and won in a unanimous decision.

While the case was ongoing, however, he claims that his colleagues who disagreed with his position on the issue acted out like petulant children.

The school touted his win as a legal victory. This is from the UVA Law website:

Clinics Earn 2 More Wins at Supreme Court

Justices resolved a split in how courts handle employment discrimination claims June 5 in the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic’s second unanimous decision during the 2024 term.

In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the appellant, Marlean Ames, alleged that the Ohio Department of Youth Services discriminated against her on the basis of sexual orientation and sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ames, a heterosexual woman who was supervised by a gay woman, was denied a promotion and later demoted from her position. The promotion was filled by a gay woman, and a gay man replaced Ames in Ames’ former role. Both the District Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed her claim before trial.

Professor Xiao Wang, the clinic’s director, presented oral argument on Feb. 26.

The ruling ends differing practices in different circuits of federal appeals courts, some of which had required more evidence to prove discrimination when the plaintiff is not a member of a minority group.

In an opinion written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court reversed the Sixth Circuit and held that the circuit court’s “background circumstances” rule — which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim — “cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s precedents.”

“By establishing the same protections for every ‘individual’ — without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group — Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,” the justice wrote.

In the video below, Wang describes what he, and his students, were put through during the case.

This tweet from Stu Smith says:

Week after week, students came to his clinic saying that faculty or other students had harassed or chastised them — or had come into his office just to berate him.

At a faculty lunch, a professor who opposed the case yells at him in public and throws a plate at him.

Tenured faculty sent letters trying to “audit” his Supreme Court clinic after an open letter misrepresents his views.

The law school convenes a panel on his case — staffed entirely by critics — and doesn’t invite the person who briefed and argued it.

He says he reported the plate incident to the administration: “I’m not sure anything has happened.”

And still, he refuses to play the victim. He describes his path from immigrant kid in rural Iowa to Supreme Court advocate — “short of playing for the Lakers, this is the American dream” — and warns that law schools are teaching students “to just judge and think later.”

Watch the whole thing to hear him describe the situation, it’s unreal.

🚨 From Smears to Plate-Throwing: Inside UVA Law’s DEI Mob vs. Professor Xiao Wang

Stick with this one—it’s worth the runtime. UVA law professor Xiao Wang explains what his own colleagues did to him after he argued Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services at the Supreme Court:… pic.twitter.com/zQIWOHbMF9

— Stu Smith (@thestustustudio) December 11, 2025

Featured image via Twitter/X video.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.