Last month, Penn and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached a resolution that spared the University from turning over personal information about its Jewish employees, ending a lengthy dispute over the agency\u2019s antisemitism investigation on campus.<\/p>\n
The announcement<\/a> came roughly a year after the EEOC first issued a subpoena seeking the records and eight months after the agency sued Penn<\/a> for refusing to comply. While the decision effectively ends the court proceedings between Penn and the EEOC, it leaves certain legal questions on the table.<\/p>\n What the agreement means<\/p>\n The July 23 agreement stipulates that the EEOC will not enforce the district court ruling nor otherwise seek the information required by the subpoena for the duration of its current investigation into the University. In exchange, Penn not only dropped its appeal of the district court ruling, but agreed to not seek to vacate it.<\/p>\n While Penn agreed to these terms, the intervenors in the suit \u2014 which include the national and Penn chapters of the American Association of University Professors and other groups \u2014 have not.<\/p>\n Get the DP delivered straight to your inbox.<\/p>\n Sign Up<\/a><\/p>\n On Aug. 4, the intervenors filed a motion<\/a> to vacate the district court opinion, arguing that although the specific subpoena is not being enforced, they remain vulnerable to \u201cfuture violations of their constitutional rights\u201d if it stands.<\/p>\n Wharton School professor Amanda Shanor, who represents a group of intervening<\/a> organizations, wrote in a statement to The Daily Pennsylvanian that violations could occur \u201cif the government were again to demand a list of Jews at Penn or another university\u201d so long as \u201cthe district court\u2019s opinion is still on the books.\u201d<\/p>\n The government \u201cmight argue that the faculty and student groups that challenged this list couldn\u2019t challenge future ones, so they could be targeted on campuses across the country and then have their hands tied,\u201d Shanor wrote.<\/p>\n She added that the intervenors are seeking to vacate the opinion under the precedent set in United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.<\/p>\n According to Shanor, Munsingwear established that \u201cif, through no fault of your own, your case is mooted before you can appeal, then the proper course is for the courts to vacate the opinion you were unable to appeal.\u201d<\/p>\n She added that the vacatur, if granted, would mean the opinion would essentially be \u201cerased from the books.\u201d If the EEOC filed a similar subpoena in the future against Penn or another school, those groups would not be limited in their arguments by preclusive principles.<\/p>\n The intervenors\u2019 motion is currently being considered by the Third Circuit Court. An EEOC spokesperson declined to comment beyond the court filings.<\/p>\n Breaking down the case<\/p>\n 2008 College graduate and EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas initially filed a notice<\/a> of the agency\u2019s probe into antisemitism at Penn in December 2023 \u2014 just days before former Penn President Liz Magill announced her resignation<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n In July 2025, the agency filed a subpoena requesting information including membership lists of Jewish-related campus groups and the names of employees in the Jewish Studies Program. The EEOC alleged that Penn \u201crefused to comply\u201d in a lawsuit<\/a> filed that November, though a University spokesperson wrote at the time that it had \u201ccooperated extensively with the EEOC.\u201d<\/p>\n Shortly after the suit was filed, hundreds of Penn community and faculty members signed<\/a> a petition criticizing the EEOC\u2019s demands.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWe offer our strongest support for the University of Pennsylvania\u2019s decision to refuse to collect and share lists of names and personal contact information of Jewish students, faculty, and staff with the federal government,\u201d the petition read.<\/p>\n The following month, Penn motioned to have the suit reassigned<\/a> to federal Judge Mitchell Goldberg, who had previously dismissed<\/a> a different antisemitism complaint filed against the University. However, Penn withdrew<\/a> the motion days later, writing in their notice that the decision was made \u201cin light of the recent retirement of the Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg.\u201d<\/p>\n At the beginning of 2026, several Penn-affiliated groups filed<\/a> a motion to intervene as defendants in the lawsuit.<\/p>\n Shanor explained that \u201ca number of national groups\u201d were concerned about the subpoena\u2019s implications, adding that the voices of those directly affected would strengthen arguments about the risks that providing such personal information would create.\u00a0<\/p>\n According to Shanor, she and several other lawyers interested in representing intervenors \u201cspoke to different faculty and student groups whose members were targeted by the subpoena who we thought might want to fight it.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIt was at a time when a lot of people were very scared,\u201d Shanor said. \u201cSeveral groups said that they were supportive, but that they were too afraid of blowback from the administration to join as intervenors.\u201d<\/p>\n Despite concerns of retaliation, several groups joined a motion to intervene as defendants, which was granted<\/a> in a Feb. 3 ruling. The decision acknowledged that the intervenors had distinct interests from Penn\u2019s own and meant that, should the University drop out of the suit, the intervenors would be able to continue litigating against the EEOC.\u00a0<\/p>\n Meanwhile, the University itself filed a brief<\/a> on Jan. 20 to criticize the agency\u2019s demands as \u201cdisconcerting but also entirely unnecessary.\u201d<\/p>\n A day later, an alliance of over 150 Jewish faculty members filed<\/a> their own amicus brief, which argued that the subpoena \u201ceffectively seeks full lists of Jewish individuals at Penn and their personal information, invokes the troubling historical persecution of Jews, and threatens the personal security of the Alliance\u2019s members.\u201d<\/p>\n The faculty alliance clarified that while all members are Penn employees, the group was not \u201cformally affiliated with the University.\u201d<\/p>\n The back and forth culminated on March 10 in the James A. Byrne United States Courthouse, where federal Judge Gerald Pappert heard oral arguments<\/a> on the case. The regional attorney for the Philadelphia district argued on behalf of the EEOC and former U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman represented Penn.<\/p>\n On behalf of the intervenors, Shanor argued that the subpoena would have a negative effect on free association and added that even a risk of impeding the right to freely assemble is sufficient to render the subpoena unconstitutional.\u00a0<\/p>\n Three weeks later, Pappert ruled<\/a> in favor of the EEOC and ordered Penn to comply with the agency\u2019s subpoena, though he asserted that the University would not have to \u201creveal any employee\u2019s affiliation with a specific Jewish-related organization.\u201d<\/p>\n In the memorandum, Pappert wrote that the EEOC\u2019s charge was \u201cvalid\u201d and that constitutional claims made by the defendants were \u201ceasily dispensed with.\u201d<\/p>\n Penn legal experts and community members immediately criticized<\/a> Pappert\u2019s ruling, expressing concerns over the decision\u2019s constitutionality and privacy implications.<\/p>\n Professors and students also highlighted<\/a> the decision\u2019s potential risks, with Penn Hillel writing that allowing the government to make lists of Jews at Penn carries \u201ca dark historical resonance\u201d in a social media statement.\u00a0<\/p>\n Later in April, Penn moved<\/a> to temporarily halt the enforcement of the subpoena pending an appeal \u2014 which Pappert granted<\/a>. He reasoned that \u201cPenn does not have a strong chance of prevailing on appeal but makes, narrowly, a showing of irreparable harm.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cStaying the Court\u2019s order will not substantially injure the EEOC and a stay will allow the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to address in an orderly manner a matter of great public interest,\u201d Pappert added.<\/p>\n Two days after Pappert granted Penn\u2019s motion, the United States Supreme Court ruled<\/a> that a subpoena demanding the personal information of an organization\u2019s donors violated the First Amendment \u2014 an argument that mirrored one made by the intervenors during the hearing a month earlier.\u00a0<\/p>\n No further updates were presented by any of the parties until July 23, when Penn announced it had reached a resolution agreement<\/a> with the EEOC.\u00a0<\/p>\n At the time, a University spokesperson wrote that the agency\u2019s \u201ccomplete abandonment of its intent to enforce the subpoena has vindicated Penn\u2019s two-and-a-half-year fight and mooted the necessity for appeal.\u201d<\/p>\n Shanor emphasized that the result proved how universities that stand their ground against the current administration can have favorable outcomes.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWe stood up, Penn stood up, and the government folded, and universities across the country, when they stand up, are winning,\u201d Shanor wrote. \u201cBut it takes courage \u2014 and the backbone to face the administration\u2019s retaliation in the interim.\u201d<\/p>\n Staff reporter Lavanya Mani covers legal affairs and can be reached at mani@thedp.com<\/a>. At Penn, she studies English. Follow her on X @lavanyamani_<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Last month, Penn and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached a resolution that spared the University from turning…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":260949,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[69,71,70],"class_list":["post-260948","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-philadelphia","tag-philadelphia","tag-philadelphia-headlines","tag-philadelphia-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260948","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=260948"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260948\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/260949"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=260948"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=260948"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=260948"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}