A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit against
US District Judge
They sued under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars federally funded programs from intentionally discriminating based on ancestry, race, ethnicity or national origin. The law also bars deliberate indifference to discrimination. But the suit failed to allege facts “showing either intentional discrimination or deliberate indifference on the part of Penn,” Goldberg ruled.
“I could find no allegations that Penn or its administration has itself taken any actions or positions which, even when read in the most favorable light, could be interpreted as antisemitic with the intention of causing harm to the plaintiffs,” he wrote. “At worst, plaintiffs accuse Penn of tolerating and permitting the expression of viewpoints which differ from their own.”
An attorney for the students called the judge’s decision “wrong.”
“The court incorrectly held that Penn has to have engaged in antisemitic conduct to be liable under Title VI but that is not so; the test is whether a university is ‘deliberately indifferent’ to protecting Jewish students against antisemitism,”
A spokesman for Penn declined to comment.
The Penn dismissal comes as
Trump’s administration has frozen about $2.6 billion in federal funding to Harvard, moved to bar international students, threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status and cancel its remaining federal contracts. Harvard has sued separately over the funding freeze and the foreign student ban. A federal judge has temporarily halted the foreign student ban.
The Trump administration also canceled $400 million in federal grants and contracts to
Goldberg, the chief judge in Philadelphia federal court, also dismissed claims by the students of breach of contract and violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. He said the students could refile their complaint on the Title VI and contract claims, noting the problems in those areas could potentially be resolved.
But he cautioned lawyers for the students to avoid “language which is unnecessarily inflammatory and ‘impertinent,’ and immaterial allegations that have virtually nothing to do with the claims which plaintiffs are endeavoring to raise.”
(Updates with comment by lawyer for students starting in fifth paragraph.)
--With assistance from
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Anthony Aarons
© 2025 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.