Controversy surrounds the “baby hatch,” a place where desperate parents in China can leave a baby they can’t care for. The increasing number of abandoned newborns has overwhelmed the government system, causing hatches to shut down. One family faces criminal charges after finding out they left their baby to die at a closed “hatch.” Seth Doane reports.

A federal judge in Colorado this week appeared skeptical of allowing the Trump administration to resume using an 18th-century wartime authority to fast-track the removal of Venezuelan migrants with limited notice and minimal, if any, due process.

U.S. District Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney on Monday heard arguments from attorneys representing the Justice Department and immigration rights groups regarding whether she should renew a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing the government from invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (AEA) to deport migrants to a notorious work camp in El Salvador.

The hearing came after the U.S. Supreme Court in the early morning hours of Saturday issued an order — the first and only Saturday order issued this term — directing the government “not to remove” any immigrant detainees subject to President Donald Trump’s proclamation invoking the AEA in northern Texas.

The Saturday order follows the justices April 7 order in which they unanimously held that “AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal” under the AEA “within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”

In light of the high court’s ruling, an incredulous Sweeney questioned how the government could prevail in the instant case, asking the government’s attorney, “How could I not continue the temporary restraining order?” the Daily Camera reported.

Seeking to have the TRO lifted, the DOJ assured the court that any individuals subject to removal under the act would be given 24 hours to challenge their deportation before a judge, Denver CBS affiliate KCNC reported.

Attorneys from the ACLU and the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network, the organizations representing the two unnamed petitioners in the case, pushed back on the administration’s position, asserting that affording migrants only one day to file individual habeas corpus petitions could not possibly comply with the Supreme Court’s directive requiring “reasonable time” for court challenges.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Penn Law is quicker to discipline whites…

Law Professors

Penn Law is quicker to discipline whites than minorities, controversial prof alleges in lawsuit

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 21, 2025, 12:29 pm CST

The University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School is facing a lawsuit alleging that the school violated First Amendment principles and anti-discrimination laws when it disciplined a professor for her controversial remarks.

Tenured law professor Amy Wax filed the Jan. 16 suit in federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, report Reuters, Law.com and Law360.

The law school had suspended Wax with half pay and full benefits for the 2025-2026 school year because of alleged “discriminatory and disparaging statements.” She also lost her named chair position and summer pay “in perpetuity.”

Wax’s alleged controversial comments included assertions that Black law students rarely graduate in the top half of their class and warnings about dominance by the “Asian elite” and the loss of bourgeois culture.

Wax’s suit says the school’s disciplinary proceedings against her are “grossly deficient” and “kangaroo-court-like.”

The school’s speech policy “discriminates based not only on the content of speech but also the racial identity of the speaker,” the suit says.

Professors like herself who are white or Jewish are far more likely to be disciplined for their speech than speakers who are racial minorities, the suit claims.

In addition, the suit says, “some races may not be criticized while other racial or ethnic groups can be—and routinely are—subjected to virulently racist speech without consequence.”

As an illustration, the suit says, the school declined to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a male lecturer who created a cartoon labeled “the Anti-Semite” that depicted three Jewish people drinking glasses of blood labeled “Gaza.” The school did criticize the lecturer, however.

The speech policy also punishes speech based on harm, which means that the school punishes speech based on disapproval and emotional reaction to statements, the suit says. That violates the school’s contractual promise to abide by First Amendment principles, according to the suit.

The suit asks the court to ban discipline against Wax and future enforcement of the speech policy, to declare that the policy violates anti-discrimination laws and the First Amendment, and to award damages.

The suit alleges breach of contract, violation of anti-discrimination laws, and false light invasion of privacy for alleged “cherry-picked” depictions of Wax’s speech that cast her as a “virulent racist.” The suit also reserves the right to sue for violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act for the school’s alleged refusal to delay disciplinary proceedings during her cancer treatments.

The university declined to comment when contacted by Law.com, Reuters and Law360.

The case is Wax v. University of Pennsylvania. Wax is represented by Holtzman Vogel.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.