Judge blocks Trump’s executive order ending support for DEI programmes
The court found it likely violates free-speech rights and granted an injunction blocking the funding withdrawal as a lawsuit plays out.
A federal judge has largely blocked a sweeping executive order from President Donald Trump that sought to end government support for programmes promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).
US District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore granted a preliminary injunction blocking the administration from terminating or changing federal contracts they consider equity-related.
Judge Abelson found the orders likely carry constitutional violations, including against free-speech rights.
Mr Trump signed an order on his first day in office directing federal agencies to terminate all “equity-related” grants or contracts. He signed a follow-up order requiring federal contractors to certify that they do not promote DEI.
The White House did not immediately return a message seeking comment on Friday evening.
The plaintiffs — including the city of Baltimore and higher education groups — sued the Trump administration earlier this month, arguing the executive orders are unconstitutional and a blatant overreach of presidential authority. They also allege the directives have a chilling effect on free speech.
“What’s happening is an overcorrection and pulling back on DEI statements,” lawyer Aleshadye Getachew said during a nearly three-hour hearing Wednesday.
The Trump administration has argued that the president was targeting only DEI programmes that violate federal civil rights laws. Lawyers for the government said the administration should be able to align federal spending with the president’s priorities.
“The government doesn’t have the obligation to subsidise plaintiffs’ exercise of speech,” said Justice Department lawyer Pardis Gheibi.
Mr Abelson, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, agreed with the plaintiffs that the executive orders discourage businesses, organisations and public entities from openly supporting diversity, equity and inclusion.
“The harm arises from the issuance of it as a public, vague, threatening executive order,” he said during the hearing.
The ruling does allow for the attorney general to investigate and prepare a report on DEI practices in accordance with one of the orders, but it blocks enforcement.
In his written opinion, Mr Abelson found reason to believe the orders are unconstitutionally vague, leaving federal contractors and grant recipients with “no reasonable way to know what, if anything, they can do to bring their grants into compliance.”
He described a hypothetical scenario where an elementary school received Department of Education funding for technology access and a teacher used a computer to teach about Jim Crow laws. Or if a road construction grant covered the cost of filling potholes in a low-income neighbourhood instead of a wealthy neighbourhood, “does that render it ‘equity-related’?” the judge asked.
Efforts to increase diversity have been under attack for years by Republicans who contend the measures threaten merit-based hiring, promotion and educational opportunities for white people.
Supporters say the programmes help institutions meet the needs of increasingly diverse populations while addressing the lasting impacts of systemic racism.
Their purpose was to foster equitable environments in businesses and schools, especially for historically marginalised communities. Although researchers say DEI initiatives date back to the 1960s, more were launched and expanded in 2020 during increased calls for racial justice.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued in their complaint that Mr Trump’s efforts to abruptly end such programs will cause widespread harm, not least because of the vague language in his executive orders.
“Ordinary citizens bear the brunt,” they wrote.
“Plaintiffs and their members receive federal funds to support educators, academics, students, workers, and communities across the country. As federal agencies make arbitrary decisions about whether grants are ‘equity-related,’ Plaintiffs are left in limbo.”
The plaintiffs include the city of Baltimore, which receives federal funds for public safety, housing, the environment, infrastructure and more, according to the complaint.
Baltimore mayor Brandon Scott, who won reelection last year, has championed efforts to increase opportunities for the city’s most vulnerable residents, including people of colour.
Mr Scott became the subject of racist attacks online last year as some commenters labelled him a “DEI mayor,” and he recently coined the phrase “Definitely Earned It” to highlight the accomplishments of Black figures throughout history.
