For the moment, at least, the University of Pennsylvania does not have to turn over lists of Jews on campus to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert issued a 12-page ruling on Monday saying that Penn could carry out the appeal process without complying with a subpoena to turn over the information. Pappert initially ruled in March that Penn had to comply with the subpoena from the EEOC by May 1. The Trump administration is seeking information on Jewish employees and students to assist in its investigation of antisemitism on Penn’s campus.
“The E.E.O.C. asserts the public has an interest in the E.E.O.C. investigating a valid charge of discrimination, and that is true, but the public also has an interest in the orderly resolution of this case through the ordinary appellate process,” Judge Pappert wrote, according to a New York Times report.
“Now that the stay has been granted, we can proceed with the appeal process,” wrote Penn in a statement, per the Times.
The Biden administration began the investigation into Penn in 2023 after a series of antisemitic incidents on campus, but the Trump administration issued the subpoena last year. In January court filings, Penn rejected the subpoena on First and Fourth Amendment grounds (free speech and privacy), appealing to the long history of governments collecting information on Jews without their consent.
Penn also claimed in November that it had done its part to assist in the investigation. It said it submitted over 100 documents totaling more than 900 pages to the EEOC. It just didn’t want to give away the names and contact information of Jews without their consent.
“Violating their privacy and trust is antithetical to ensuring Penn’s Jewish community feels protected and safe,” the school told Philadelphia Jewish Exponent in a statement.
After Judge Pappert’s March ruling, Penn Hillel, which joined the school’s January filing opposing the requests, gave firm backing to Penn’s case in a statement posted to Instagram.
“Accountability in the face of discrimination is essential, but it must not be achieved by compromising the security of any minority community. We call on all parties to pursue this investigation in a manner that addresses antisemitism while safeguarding the fundamental rights of those it aims to protect,” the organization wrote.
In his March ruling, Judge Pappert wrote that the request “had an understandable purpose,” which was to obtain “information on individuals in Penn’s Jewish community who could have experienced or witnessed antisemitism in the workplace.” He also called comparisons to Nazi Germany and appeals to history greatly exaggerated.
In April, at the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law’s conference on antisemitism and civil rights law at Harvard University, EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas explained that information collection was essential to the successful prosecution of civil rights cases. She said Jews had to decide if they actually wanted civil rights enforcement “in this space.” If so, the government needed information.
Under Lucas’ leadership, the EEOC has increased the number of religious workplace discrimination cases that it pursues. The chair framed this strategy as essential to preserving religious liberty, a core value of her office.
Regarding this case specifically, Lucas said, “I have reason to believe there are victims there, but I may not know all of them.” She acknowledged privacy concerns and the “sensitivities” involved, but she also said that the EEOC takes its confidentiality duties “very, very seriously.”