Connect with us

News

Read the Judge’s Decision on the Trump Administration’s Subpoena Against Penn

Published

on

Read the Judge’s Decision on the Trump Administration’s Subpoena Against Penn

Case 2:25-cv-06502-GJP Document 54 Filed 03/31/26

Page 5 of 32

Nov. 6, 2023 at 1, Dkt. No. 1-12.) All of this “brought tremendous pain to Jewish students, faculty, and staff.” (Magill, Nov. 10, 2023 at 1.)
On December 8, 2023, EEOC Commissioner Andrea Lucas issued a sworn charge of discrimination, alleging Penn “engaged in a pattern or practice of harassment based on national origin, religion, and/or race against Jewish employees, in violation of Title VII.” (Comm’r’s Charge, Dkt. No. 1-4.) Specifically, Commissioner Lucas alleged Penn, since November of 2022, failed to provide Jewish faculty, staff and other employees a work environment free from religious harassment. (Id.) She premised her charge on “publicly available information”—including, among other sources, a federal lawsuit against Penn and President Magill’s statements. See (id.).
On July 23, 2025, the EEOC issued an administrative subpoena to obtain from Penn contact information of potential employee victims or witnesses of antisemitic harassment. (Subpoena No. Pa. 25-07, Dkt. No. 1-20); (Tr. of Oral Arg. at 158:5–6, EEOC.) While the EEOC initially considered subpoenaing all Penn employees’ contact information, it decided not to do so, assuming Penn would object on grounds of relevance. (Tr. of Oral Arg. at 15:13–19, EEOC.) The EEOC also believed it could not effectively investigate Commissioner Lucas’s charge by calling 20,000 individuals, (id. at 15:21, EEOC), as it is “short-staffed” and has “tremendous inventory,” (id. at 20:8–9, EEOC.)
Accordingly, the EEOC sought to identify primarily employees “aligned with the Penn Jewish community.” (Id. at 15:24–25, EEOC.) Such employees, the EEOC believed, would be reasonably likely to have information relevant to Commissioner Lucas’s charge. (Id.) The EEOC could not demand from Penn all employees’ contact

5

News

Video: The Rise of Deadly Trucks and S.U.V.s

Published

on

Video: The Rise of Deadly Trucks and S.U.V.s

new video loaded: The Rise of Deadly Trucks and S.U.V.s

A once-steady decline in pedestrian deaths in the United States has reversed, even as other countries have grown safer. Michael Keller, a New York Times investigative reporter, used crash test results, 3-D visibility scans and real-world reconstructions to explore how the boom in taller, heavier trucks and S.U.V.s has changed what happens when a person is struck.

By Michael H. Keller, Danielle Ivory, Irineo Cabreros, Eli Murray, Gabriel Blanco and Joey Sendaydiego

June 22, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court allows a ruling that ends a tool to protect minority voters in 7 states

Published

on

Supreme Court allows a ruling that ends a tool to protect minority voters in 7 states

Demonstrators hold a sign saying “PROTECT MINORITY VOTING RIGHTS” outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., in 2025.

Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Legal Defense Fund


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Legal Defense Fund

By declining to take up a lower court ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has dealt another blow to the Voting Rights Act.

The court announced Monday that it will not review an Arkansas-based lawsuit, leaving in place a 2025 appeals panel ruling that ends a long-used tool for protecting minority voters from discrimination under the landmark law in seven mainly Midwestern states.

That ruling found that in the states covered by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota — private individuals and groups do not have the right to sue to enforce what’s known as Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, which generally allows voters with a disability or inability to read or write to get help with voting from a person of their choice.

Advertisement

The Supreme Court’s move comes almost two months after its conservative supermajority issued a major ruling that further weakened the Voting Rights Act, setting off a groundswell in redistricting across the country.

In May, shortly after that undermining of Section 2 protections against racial discrimination in redistricting, the high court decided not to weigh in on what the legal world calls a “private right of action,” sending back to lower courts two cases brought by Black voters in Mississippi and Native American voters in North Dakota.

For decades, enforcement of these sections of the Voting Rights Act has mainly been driven by lawsuits by private individuals and groups.

But after conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a single-paragraph opinion in 2021 questioning a private right of action, Republican officials in multiple states have raised a novel legal argument: Only the U.S. attorney general, they contend, has the right to bring lawsuits under these parts of the Voting Rights Act.

Such an interpretation of the law is likely to lead to a dramatic decline in voting rights lawsuits because of the Justice Department’s limited resources and shifting priorities under different presidential administrations.

Advertisement

The case that the justices decided not to take up was brought by the immigrant advocacy group Arkansas United, which has provided Spanish-language interpreters at polling sites to assist voters with limited English proficiency. The group challenged an Arkansas law that bans a person who is not a poll worker from helping more than six voters cast ballots. In 2022, a federal judge ruled that the state law violates Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act. But after GOP state officials appealed, an 8th Circuit panel found last year that private groups, like Arkansas United, do not have the right to bring this kind of lawsuit.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Video: California Governor Declares State of Emergency for L.A. Warehouse Fire

Published

on

Video: California Governor Declares State of Emergency for L.A. Warehouse Fire

new video loaded: California Governor Declares State of Emergency for L.A. Warehouse Fire

transcript

transcript

California Governor Declares State of Emergency for L.A. Warehouse Fire

A fire that broke out on Wednesday at a cold storage facility in Los Angeles continued to burn on Sunday. Gov. Gavin Newsom declared an emergency.

We do realize that at times there are large amounts of smoke coming off this building, and that is to be expected. Now, the good news is, all of our air monitoring has shown that there are no additional toxic chemicals or hazards within that smoke other than normal structure fire smoke. That said, no smoke is good smoke. There are smoke advisories and particulate matter advisories out there around the community, spanning for several miles around this incident. We are going to continue to aggressively fight this fire and minimize the impact to the community as much as possible.

Advertisement
A fire that broke out on Wednesday at a cold storage facility in Los Angeles continued to burn on Sunday. Gov. Gavin Newsom declared an emergency.

By Cynthia Silva

June 21, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending