Judge orders Penn to turn over names in antisemitism probe

The federal government’s push to identify possible Jewish victims and witnesses at the University of Pennsylvania has opened a civil-liberties fight over how far an antisemitism investigation can go before it collides with privacy, religious identity and campus safety.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said it was investigating a “pattern or practice” of antisemitic harassment of Jewish employees at Penn and issued an administrative subpoena on July 23, 2025. The agency sought contact information for potential victims and witnesses, including employees in Jewish-related organizations, employees in Penn’s Jewish Studies Program, and people who took part in Penn’s March 2024 listening sessions on antisemitism or completed a university antisemitism survey.

Penn told the court that it does not maintain a list of Jewish faculty, staff or students and argued that complying would force it to create one. The university said the demand raised serious privacy, First Amendment and safety concerns because any leaked contact information could expose people to antisemitic harm.

U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled on March 31 that Penn had to comply with most of the subpoena by May 1, 2026, but said the university did not have to disclose any employee’s affiliation with a specific Jewish-related organization. Pappert said the discrimination charge was valid and that the EEOC’s request sought relevant information. He also called comparisons to Nazi Germany’s compilation of “lists of Jews” “unfortunate and inappropriate.”

The dispute grew out of the campus backlash that followed Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel and public statements by then-Penn president Elizabeth Magill and other university leaders about antisemitism. The EEOC said Penn failed to provide a work environment free from harassment, citing antisemitic slurs, messages and threats of violence. Penn said it remained committed to confronting antisemitism and had taken multiple steps to address discrimination.

After Penn filed a motion to stay the order on April 13, Pappert granted a pause on April 27 while the Third Circuit Court of Appeals considers the case. He wrote that Penn had not shown a strong chance of success on appeal, but had made a narrow showing of irreparable harm, and said the public interest favored giving the appellate court time to review the dispute. The EEOC opposed the stay, calling Penn’s claimed injuries speculative.

The case now stands as a test of how federal investigators can pursue antisemitism claims without crossing into compelled disclosure of sensitive identity information, a question with consequences well beyond Penn’s Philadelphia campus.