Penn faces off with federal agency in court over antisemitism investigation subpoena

This story is developing and will continue to be updated. 

A federal judge heard oral arguments on Tuesday as part of Penn’s challenge to a federal agency subpoena seeking information about Jewish students, faculty, and campus groups.

The hearing is the latest in a months-long legal battle between Penn and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over the agency’s authority to enforce its subpoena, which was first issued in July 2025 during an ongoing investigation into the University. United States District Court Judge Gerald Pappert’s decision could determine the scope of the EEOC’s investigations into antisemitism on college campuses nationwide.

A University spokesperson wrote to The Daily Pennsylvanian that Penn is “awaiting the judge’s decision.” An EEOC spokesperson declined to comment on the hearing, writing that the agency “does not comment on ongoing litigation.”

Penn was represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman, while University-affiliated intervenors were represented by Wharton professor Amanda Shanor and Matthew Hamermesh of Hangley, Aronchick, Segal, Pudlin, and Schiller. 

At the beginning of the trial, Pappert emphasized that his role was solely to determine if the EEOC had a valid charge, not to debate the merit of the agency’s charges. He repeated the point several times during the three-hour-long proceedings, including during both Waxman’s and Shanor’s arguments.

Debra Lawrence, regional attorney of the Philadelphia district, argued on behalf of the EEOC. In her opening arguments, Lawrence characterized the EEOC as a “neutral fact-finder” and highlighted that the agency’s procedures were standard practice. 

She explained why EEOC chose to charge the University directly.

“Sometimes information comes to the Commissioner, and we don’t wait for a charging party to come forward,” Lawrence stated. “When we talk to witnesses, that’s when we’ll find out why they haven’t come to us.”

Lawrence added that Penn’s offer to mediate conversations between willing employees and the EEOC would be “unacceptable,” because it would be inappropriate for an employer to set the terms of such an investigation. 

According to Lawrence, the agency was “disturbed” by attempts to connect the suit with 1968 Wharton graduate and President Donald Trump’s administration. She said that it has “tried not to engage in political rhetoric.”

Waxman — who was arguing on Penn's behalf — alleged that the EEOC’s subpoena was not specific enough to be enforceable. “You will not find a case remotely like this,” he said.

He asserted that “there is no specification, much less facts, of an unlawful employment practice,” and that Penn had taken immediate corrective action after any antisemitic incidents on campus, characterizing the subpoena as “a fishing expedition.”

Waxman also stated that the EEOC has a much more limited scope than other federal agencies.

“This charge fails every single characteristic the Supreme Court said puts this over the line,” Waxman said. 

He also said that the EEOC’s charge “doesn’t meet regulatory, statutory, or Supreme Court requirements” for relevance. He criticized the agency for compiling what he characterized as “lists of Jews” through the information requested by its subpoena.

Hamermesh and Shanor, arguing on behalf of the intervening organizations, claimed that the subpoena violated rights to privacy, religious exercise, association, and academic freedom.

Hamermesh stated that affected students and faculty have a significant personal interest in keeping their religious affiliation private from the government, adding that collecting this information would be “shocking to the conscience.” 

He also said that the particular combination of knowing someone’s contact information, home address, and religious affiliation warranted a right to privacy, even if the separate pieces of information might not. 

Hamermesh pointed to activities hosted by the Jewish Law Students Association, such as Friday-night dinners and readings of the Torah, as examples of religious exercise that would be chilled or impeded by the subpoena.

Shanor cited the declarations filed in the intervenors’ brief as evidence that the subpoena would have a chilling effect on free association. She said that even a risk of impeding the right to freely assemble is sufficient to render the subpoena unconstitutional. 

She added that while the EEOC was under no obligation to cooperate with the University, they were required to act in the least harmful way to the constitutional rights of students and faculty. 

In response to the defendants’ arguments, Lawrence reasserted the constitutional basis of the subpoena. She stated that fear of possible repercussions was not sufficient to undermine the EEOC’s investigations and said that employer-employee confidentiality could not lawfully exclude federal agencies like the EEOC. 

“Antisemitic incidents have plagued this workplace,” she said on Penn. “We are exactly where we should be: here in this case.”

During the hearing, Pappert said he would rule on the case once a transcript from the arguments was available.

In November 2025, the EEOC filed a lawsuit alleging that Penn failed to comply with the agency’s requirements. At the time, a University spokesperson told the DP that Penn “cooperated extensively” with the EEOC but would not provide “personal and confidential” information of students and employees without their consent. 

That month, hundreds of members of the Penn community signed a petition criticizing the actions taken by the EEOC. Faculty and student groups highlighted concerns about the historical connotations of collecting personal information about Jewish individuals.

Other campus stakeholders have characterized the EEOC’s investigation — which included obtaining the personal phone numbers of Penn community members — as “odd” and “amateurish.” 

In January, Penn submitted a brief in response to the agency’s claims of noncompliance, stating that the University has agreed to the agency’s demands, but remains unwilling to submit personal information without the consent of the affected parties.

The brief described the subpoena as “disconcerting but also entirely unnecessary,” arguing that disclosing private details would “erode trust between Penn and its employees and the broader Jewish community at Penn.”

In a filing later that month, the EEOC claimed Penn “impeded” the agency’s investigation into allegations of campus antisemitism and its subpoena was “no different” from other requests for information in previous investigations.

The Penn-affiliated groups motioned to intervene as defendants in the lawsuit in January and were approved on Feb. 3.

---