More than 150 Jewish faculty members at the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) have filed an amicus brief backing the university’s effort to block a federal subpoena that, in their view, would force Penn to compile sensitive identifying information about Jews on campus—an escalation in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) antisemitism investigation that Penn and multiple campus groups argue has crossed into unconstitutional overreach.
The brief arrives as the lawsuit continues to widen beyond Penn and the EEOC, with several Penn-affiliated organizations seeking to participate directly in the case to prevent enforcement of the subpoena and to keep the dispute alive even if the university were to comply. The EEOC has said the university’s refusal to provide certain information is hindering the agency’s ability to identify potential witnesses and victims as it investigates allegations of workplace antisemitism.
In their new filing, the Jewish Faculty Alliance—representing faculty across 11 of Penn’s 12 schools, according to The Daily Pennsylvanian—told the court it supports efforts to combat antisemitism but fears the subpoena’s breadth could expose people to risk. “While the Alliance supports the EEOC’s efforts to combat antisemitism at Penn, its members are gravely concerned that the scope of the EEOC subpoena, which effectively 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’s members,” the faculty wrote in the brief.
Penn, for its part, submitted its own response on Jan. 20 describing the agency’s demands as “disconcerting but also entirely unnecessary,” according to The Daily Pennsylvanian’s coverage. In the filing, the university argues it has cooperated extensively—producing nearly 900 pages of materials—and that the “sole dispute” is the EEOC’s demand that Penn compile lists that “reveal their Jewish faith or ancestry” and connect that information to “personal home addresses, phone numbers, and emails.” Penn said it offered an alternative approach: notifying all employees about how to contact the EEOC directly if they have relevant information, rather than turning over identity-based lists without consent.
The EEOC, meanwhile, has opposed efforts by Penn affiliates to formally join the case, arguing that there is “nothing unusual or new” about its investigation and that intervention is “unwarranted” and “should be denied,” The Daily Pennsylvanian reported. The agency has also argued that being “potential victims” of antisemitism allegations does not automatically give groups standing to intervene in a subpoena enforcement proceeding.
The dispute is now before U.S. District Judge Gerald Pappert, who will decide whether the EEOC’s subpoena should be enforced and, if so, under what limits. Whatever the outcome, the case is being closely watched across higher education, where institutions have faced heightened federal scrutiny over antisemitism complaints, campus speech, and protest activity since the Israel-Hamas war. Critics have warned that civil rights enforcement can become a lever for political pressure—especially when investigations are paired with broad data demands—while supporters of aggressive oversight argue that robust tools are necessary to identify discrimination and ensure institutions meet their legal obligations.
