Centre Daily Times, et al., v. Kleppinger (Penn State University)

Summary

On May 27, 2026, the Centre Daily Times, Spotlight PA, and StateCollege.com filed a federal lawsuit against Penn State Board of Trustees Chair David Kleppinger, Vice Chair Richard Sokolov, and Governance Committee Chair Daniel Onorato. The lawsuit challenged provisions of the Board’s bylaws that restricted trustees’ public statements and interactions with the press. The plaintiffs alleged that the bylaws limited trustees’ ability to criticize the university or Board and required trustees to coordinate with university officials before speaking with the media about matters that had come before the Board. The plaintiffs alleged that the restrictions violated the First Amendment by limiting trustees’ speech and the ability of news organizations to gather information from them.

The complaint alleged that trustees who violated the provisions could be “counseled, admonished, sanctioned, or removed from their position.” It cited former Penn State trustee Alice Pope, who had publicly criticized the Board’s decision to close seven of the university’s 20 Commonwealth campuses in April and May 2025. Following a May 22, 2025, virtual news conference, Pope received a letter from Board leaders stating that she had violated the Code of Conduct. In a declaration filed with the complaint, Pope stated that she had become “more cautious and selective about what I say publicly” as a result.

The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on June 11, 2026, seeking to prevent enforcement of the challenged provisions while the lawsuit proceeded. The court entered an order scheduling a preliminary injunction hearing on June 18. The Board then unanimously amended its bylaws on July 17 to exempt emeriti trustees from the speech restrictions. Four days later, the defendants opposed the preliminary injunction motion, arguing that because the restrictions no longer applied to emeriti trustees, the plaintiffs no longer had a live injury and their claims were moot.

The plaintiffs filed a reply on August 14, 2026, arguing that the challenged restrictions remained in effect for the Board’s 38 active trustees. They also argued that the Board’s amendment did not resolve the case because the Board retained the ability to reinstate the restrictions.