This story is developing and will continue to be updated.
A federal court granted Penn’s motion to temporarily halt the enforcement of a ruling requiring the University to comply with a subpoena seeking information about Jewish students and faculty on Monday.
As a result of the stay, Penn will not have to provide information requested by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission until the appeals process is complete. The April 27 order was filed alongside a memorandum written by U.S. District Court Judge Gerald Pappert, who ruled in favor of the EEOC last month.
“Now that the stay has been granted, we can proceed with the appeal process,” a University spokesperson wrote in a statement to The Daily Pennsylvanian.
A request for comment was left with the EEOC.
“Penn does not have a strong chance of prevailing on appeal but makes, narrowly, a showing of irreparable harm,” Pappert wrote in the memo. “Staying the Court’s 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.”
He added that both the EEOC’s investigation and the court’s earlier decision “sparked a great deal of public debate,” which Pappert attributed to Penn having “mischaracterized” the proceedings.
In addition to its notice of appeal, Penn filed a motion to stay the court’s original decision on April 13.
At the time, lawyers for the University argued that Penn was “likely to prevail on the appeal” and would face “irreparable injury absent a stay.”
“Whether the constitution protects against the compelled disclosure of religious information lies at the heart of the privacy claim Penn asserts in defense of the subpoena, and it is not a question squarely addressed by the Court’s decision,” Penn’s April 13 filing read. “Penn’s position, however, is rooted in prevailing Supreme Court precedent.”
In its response brief to the University, EEOC lawyers wrote that the University would be “hard-pressed to show any likelihood of success” upon appeal. They also argued that the injuries Penn lawyers alleged are actually “attenuated and speculative harms on behalf of third parties.”
“As the Court explained, the EEOC has an important interest in investigating a valid charge of discrimination,” Pappert argued. “There is no dramatic mismatch between that interest and the subpoena the EEOC issued.”
Despite stating that Penn does not have a “strong chance of prevailing on appeal,” Pappert granted the University’s motion to stay, arguing that the EEOC failed to show “it would be substantially injured by a stay pending appeal.”
“The public interest favors a stay,” he concluded. “The Third Circuit Court of Appeals should have time to consider and decide the merits of this case, absent unnecessary procedural deadlines.”
The EEOC first sued Penn in November 2025, alleging that the University failed to comply with the subpoena — which was issued as part of the agency’s investigation into alleged workplace antisemitism on campus.
A University spokesperson told the DP at the time that Penn “cooperated extensively” with the EEOC but would not provide “personal and confidential” information of students and employees without their consent.
Staff reporter Lavanya Mani covers legal affairs and can be reached at mani@thedp.com. At Penn, she studies English. Follow her on X @lavanyamani_.
