Federal Judge Dismisses Antisemitism Lawsuit Against University of Pennsylvania

PHILADELPHIA — A federal judge has thrown out a high-profile lawsuit filed against the University of Pennsylvania by several Jewish students who alleged that the Ivy League institution allowed antisemitism to fester on its campus following the Hamas-led attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.

In a detailed opinion released this week, Chief Judge Mitchell Goldberg of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania concluded that the students failed to present sufficient legal grounds for their claims under federal and state law.

“Plaintiffs have failed to plead any facts showing either intentional discrimination or deliberate indifference on the part of Penn,” Judge Goldberg wrote in his ruling.

A 111-Page Complaint Falls Short

The lawsuit, originally filed in December 2023 by students Jordan David and Noah Rubin and Penn alumnus Eyal Yakoby, was supported by the nonprofit group Students Against Antisemitism. The amended version of the complaint, which stretched across 111 pages and 312 paragraphs, accused the University of Pennsylvania of fostering a “hostile educational environment” for Jewish students.

The plaintiffs detailed numerous incidents they claim made them feel unsafe or marginalized, including antisemitic remarks, exclusion from campus activities, and threats related to the Palestine Writes Festival and other pro-Palestinian demonstrations held on campus in the months following the Hamas attack.

However, Judge Goldberg found that the scope and structure of the complaint undermined its credibility.

“The amended complaint sets out a wide variety of general allegations, complaints, historical and current events, and alleged antisemitic incidents that allegedly took place not just on Penn’s campus, but elsewhere in the United States and the world,” Goldberg noted.

He criticized the filing for mixing ideological, religious, and political grievances with legal claims, ultimately ruling that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, or breach of contract.

No Direct Evidence of Intentional Discrimination

One of the key legal standards the plaintiffs were required to meet was demonstrating that Penn had engaged in intentional discrimination or exhibited deliberate indifference to antisemitic behavior on its campus.

The court found that while the students may have experienced distress, discomfort, or even harassment, they did not provide evidence that Penn, as an institution, either endorsed those actions or willfully chose to ignore them.

“At worst,” Goldberg wrote, “Plaintiffs accuse Penn of tolerating and permitting the expression of viewpoints which differ from their own.”

He further stated that there were no allegations that Penn administrators took any official positions or actions that could be reasonably interpreted as antisemitic or as having the intention to harm Jewish students.

Personal Impact Described, But Not Legally Actionable

The plaintiffs described how antisemitic rhetoric and protests had impacted their day-to-day lives. They said they were forced to miss classes and extracurricular activities, avoid wearing Jewish symbols, and even stay away from certain parts of campus out of fear for their safety.

Some said they refrained from speaking about their religious or political beliefs, while others claimed they lost out on the educational value of their time at Penn due to the hostile environment.

Goldberg acknowledged the emotional and psychological toll described in the complaint but emphasized that those experiences, while serious, did not meet the legal threshold for Title VI violations.

“Deliberate indifference is a very high bar,” Goldberg wrote. “Plaintiffs’ dissatisfaction with Penn’s responses is not enough to establish there was an official decision by Penn to not remedy a Title VI violation.”

University Response and Preventative Measures

In its defense, the University of Pennsylvania submitted documentation showing that it has long-standing policies in place to combat antisemitism and hate speech. Since October 2023, Penn says it has also expanded these efforts in response to rising tensions on campus.

According to the court filings, the university has developed new action plans to address antisemitic behavior, increased campus security, and hosted educational programs aimed at fostering religious and cultural tolerance.

These efforts, Goldberg ruled, undermined the claim that Penn had been deliberately indifferent to student concerns.

“Penn has submitted documentary evidence showing it has long had policies in place opposing antisemitism in all its forms,” Goldberg noted. “These policies, and the new measures put in place post-October 7, are inconsistent with the idea of deliberate indifference.”

A Broader National Conversation

The lawsuit at Penn comes amid a broader reckoning across U.S. universities over how they address antisemitism and free speech, particularly in the context of rising tensions in the Middle East.

In recent months, dozens of universities — including Harvard, Columbia, and UCLA — have seen student protests, encampments, and calls for divestment from companies linked to Israel. At the same time, some Jewish students have reported feeling alienated or unsafe in these environments.

Former President Donald Trump, who is currently seeking re-election, has used the issue as a political wedge, promising to cut federal funding to universities that he says tolerate antisemitic behavior. The Department of Education under his administration has launched multiple investigations into college campuses for alleged violations of Title VI.

According to public records, over 60 universities are currently under federal investigation for claims related to antisemitic harassment or discrimination.

The Debate Over Free Expression vs. Hate Speech

The case at Penn also touches on a complex and often contentious debate about the limits of free expression on campus. University administrators are frequently caught between protecting open discourse — including unpopular or controversial viewpoints — and ensuring the safety and wellbeing of students from marginalized or targeted groups.

Judge Goldberg seemed to recognize this balance in his opinion, cautioning against equating differing viewpoints with institutional wrongdoing.

“Universities are, by nature, places where diverse and sometimes conflicting ideas are expressed,” he wrote. “While some may find these ideas offensive or hurtful, tolerating their expression is not equivalent to endorsing hate or discrimination.”

What’s Next?

Despite the dismissal, the plaintiffs may still appeal the decision to a higher court, or they could revise and refile their complaint. For now, however, the lawsuit stands as a significant legal setback for efforts to hold universities liable for failing to curb campus-based antisemitism.

In a statement following the ruling, a spokesperson for the University of Pennsylvania reiterated the school’s commitment to “creating an inclusive and respectful environment for all students, regardless of their background or beliefs.”

Meanwhile, Students Against Antisemitism issued a statement expressing disappointment in the court’s ruling, but vowed to continue advocating for Jewish students across the country.

“This ruling may have closed one door,” the group said, “but the fight against antisemitism on college campuses is far from over.”