Commission debates using subpoenas, written discovery for campus antisemitism briefing

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights added a discussion of its discovery powers for a planned briefing on antisemitism on college campuses and debated whether planning documents should explicitly include authority to issue subpoenas and written discovery.

Commissioner Adams moved to add the discussion to the agenda and said commissioners leading the report had repeatedly been "stonewalled" by colleges during attempts to gather information. The motion to add the discussion was seconded and passed on a roll-call vote recorded in the meeting as 8–0.

During extended discussion, Adams urged that discovery plans use "the full measure" of the commission's powers so staff and co-leads would not have to return for another vote if institutions failed to cooperate. Adams said he and a co-lead had seen years of nonresponse from some schools and asked that the planning documents "put [subpoena and written discovery] in the planning documents this time."

Adams identified a list of institutions his team had found unresponsive: "Columbia, MIT, Middlebury, Northwestern, George Washington, Haverford, Swarthmore, UC Davis, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Michigan, SUNY Purchase, Ohio State," he said.

Vice Chair Nurse, who noted she works at Georgetown University, said she "fully support[s] the antisemitism report" but asked that the planning documents include a precondition showing the party is "in fact intransigent" before a subpoena issue, observing that courts typically require steps to be taken before issuing compulsory process.

Commissioner Jones said any organization that "unreasonably fails to comply" might be subject to subpoena, but he urged that the commission discuss deadlines, logistics and budget — including funds for a field briefing planned for this fall — before proceeding. Commissioner Harriott said the commission has precedent for issuing subpoenas and endorsed using its subpoena power early if cooperation is not forthcoming: "I support using our subpoena power, and I would expect no cooperation, until they get a subpoena," she said.

Commissioners also discussed practical limits: starting with subpoenas for all potential witnesses could mean dozens of subpoenas and possible involvement of the Department of Justice to enforce them. Several commissioners said staff and the co-leads should draft planning documents that set deadlines and include discovery tools so the briefing can proceed on schedule.

The commission did not vote to issue subpoenas at the meeting; instead members added the discovery discussion to the agenda, asked staff and co-leads to incorporate clear discovery language in planning documents and signaled majority support for using subpoenas when necessary. The meeting then moved on to the monthly staff director’s report.