{"id":124053,"date":"2025-06-24T18:03:23","date_gmt":"2025-06-25T02:03:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/06\/24\/amy-wax-loses-bid-to-enjoin-sanctions\/"},"modified":"2025-06-24T18:03:23","modified_gmt":"2025-06-25T02:03:23","slug":"amy-wax-loses-bid-to-enjoin-sanctions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/06\/24\/amy-wax-loses-bid-to-enjoin-sanctions\/","title":{"rendered":"Amy Wax Loses Bid To Enjoin Sanctions"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
Amy Wax<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Amy Wax continues to drape herself in high-minded concepts like the \u201cFirst Amendment\u201d and \u201cacademic freedom\u201d as she fights the sanctions placed on the law professor by the University of Pennsylvania. But a federal judge just slapped down her bid for a preliminary injunction, noting what many of us have said over and over since this saga began. \u201cWe reiterate that this is not a First Amendment case,\u201d Judge Timothy Savage wrote. \u201cIt is a breach of contract case. Wax\u2019s efforts to characterize it otherwise are of no avail.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s the latest in a long, drawn out affair. The school afforded Wax years worth of a leash to continue embarrassing the institution with racist op-eds<\/a> and unfounded insults against minority students<\/a> before, finally, after a lengthy and cautious investigation, sanctioning her\u00a0to one year at half pay, a public reprimand, the loss of her named chair, and a requirement that she must always clarify that she\u2019s not speaking for or as a member of Penn Law. That\u2019s it. She keeps her job and tenure.<\/p>\n

But that wasn\u2019t enough, so Wax took the school to court.<\/p>\n

Wax has always clung to a flimsy academic freedom argument<\/a>. While higher education thrives because it honors a scholar\u2019s freedom to pursue unorthodox hypotheses in the quest for truth, the doctrine loses a lot of juice when a professor trades peer reviewed papers for \u201cZooming with Tucker Carlson.\u201d She\u2019s basically hit the \u201cEasy\u201d button on her career, opting for rants with friendly audiences rather than face scrutiny from colleagues, and then demanded the protections reserved for scholars out there doing the hard work.<\/p>\n

As part of this crusade, she claims the university has trampled her core First Amendment freedoms. But the court notes that Wax can\u2019t bolt free speech onto the contract dispute with her employer:<\/p>\n

\n

Wax argues we should presume irreparable harm because the Third Circuit has recently \u201cpresum[ed] that First Amendment harms are irreparable.\u201d Id. (citing Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14, 19 (2020) (per curiam)). This is not a First Amendment case. It is a breach of contract case.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

For the record, Wax teaches labor and employment. Maybe she really should stick to writing op-eds instead.<\/p>\n

While Wax gave the school a lot of reasons<\/a> to sanction her, it was the impugning of student ability and inviting white nationalists to campus that gave the school its strongest arguments. There\u2019s no academic freedom excuse for discriminatory remarks about students or introducing a potential safety issue. That\u2019s core employment fodder.<\/p>\n

Not that Wax had much of an argument for irreparable harm anyway.<\/p>\n

\n

Wax claims the sanctions damage her reputation. As evidence of irreparable harm, she points to the cancellation of a scheduled radio appearance and an attempted cancellation of a speech at Yale. However, she has not shown any connection between those incidents and the sanctions. She also has not shown that the cancellation and attempted cancellation were not simply a result of her more widely publicized views.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Ha. In the words of The Dude, \u201cThis is not a First Amendment thing, man.\u201d<\/p>\n

The judge also noted that whatever reputational harm she could conceivably tie to the sanctions has already occurred, making a preliminary injunction useless and that she\u2019s still free to take whatever speaking engagements as long as she affirmatively dispels any confusion that she\u2019s speaking for Penn Law.<\/p>\n

And she wants the teaching suspension lifted, but the judge noted that the harm isn\u2019t teaching, it\u2019s the half pay \u2014 a damage that doesn\u2019t get cured with equitable relief.<\/p>\n

(Check out the opinion on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Amy Wax Loses Bid To Enjoin Sanctions<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Amy Wax<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Amy Wax continues to drape herself in high-minded concepts like the \u201cFirst Amendment\u201d and \u201cacademic freedom\u201d as she fights the sanctions placed on the law professor by the University of Pennsylvania. But a federal judge just slapped down her bid for a preliminary injunction, noting what many of us have said over and over since this saga began. \u201cWe reiterate that this is not a First Amendment case,\u201d Judge Timothy Savage wrote. \u201cIt is a breach of contract case. Wax\u2019s efforts to characterize it otherwise are of no avail.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s the latest in a long, drawn out affair. The school afforded Wax years worth of a leash to continue embarrassing the institution with racist op-eds<\/a> and unfounded insults against minority students<\/a> before, finally, after a lengthy and cautious investigation, sanctioning her\u00a0to one year at half pay, a public reprimand, the loss of her named chair, and a requirement that she must always clarify that she\u2019s not speaking for or as a member of Penn Law. That\u2019s it. She keeps her job and tenure.<\/p>\n

But that wasn\u2019t enough, so Wax took the school to court.<\/p>\n

Wax has always clung to a flimsy academic freedom argument<\/a>. While higher education thrives because it honors a scholar\u2019s freedom to pursue unorthodox hypotheses in the quest for truth, the doctrine loses a lot of juice when a professor trades peer reviewed papers for \u201cZooming with Tucker Carlson.\u201d She\u2019s basically hit the \u201cEasy\u201d button on her career, opting for rants with friendly audiences rather than face scrutiny from colleagues, and then demanded the protections reserved for scholars out there doing the hard work.<\/p>\n

As part of this crusade, she claims the university has trampled her core First Amendment freedoms. But the court notes that Wax can\u2019t bolt free speech onto the contract dispute with her employer:<\/p>\n

\n

Wax argues we should presume irreparable harm because the Third Circuit has recently \u201cpresum[ed] that First Amendment harms are irreparable.\u201d Id. (citing Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14, 19 (2020) (per curiam)). This is not a First Amendment case. It is a breach of contract case.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

For the record, Wax teaches labor and employment. Maybe she really should stick to writing op-eds instead.<\/p>\n

While Wax gave the school a lot of reasons<\/a> to sanction her, it was the impugning of student ability and inviting white nationalists to campus that gave the school its strongest arguments. There\u2019s no academic freedom excuse for discriminatory remarks about students or introducing a potential safety issue. That\u2019s core employment fodder.<\/p>\n

Not that Wax had much of an argument for irreparable harm anyway.<\/p>\n

\n

Wax claims the sanctions damage her reputation. As evidence of irreparable harm, she points to the cancellation of a scheduled radio appearance and an attempted cancellation of a speech at Yale. However, she has not shown any connection between those incidents and the sanctions. She also has not shown that the cancellation and attempted cancellation were not simply a result of her more widely publicized views.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Ha. In the words of The Dude, \u201cThis is not a First Amendment thing, man.\u201d<\/p>\n

The judge also noted that whatever reputational harm she could conceivably tie to the sanctions has already occurred, making a preliminary injunction useless and that she\u2019s still free to take whatever speaking engagements as long as she affirmatively dispels any confusion that she\u2019s speaking for Penn Law.<\/p>\n

And she wants the teaching suspension lifted, but the judge noted that the harm isn\u2019t teaching, it\u2019s the half pay \u2014 a damage that doesn\u2019t get cured with equitable relief.<\/p>\n

(Check out the opinion on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Amy Wax Loses Bid To Enjoin Sanctions<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Amy Wax Amy Wax continues to drape herself in high-minded concepts like the \u201cFirst Amendment\u201d and \u201cacademic freedom\u201d as she fights the sanctions placed on the law professor by the University of Pennsylvania. But a federal judge just slapped down her bid for a preliminary injunction, noting what many of us have said over and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":124046,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-124053","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/Headshot-300x200-YuaHxG.jpeg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124053","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=124053"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124053\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/124046"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124053"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124053"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124053"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}