WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday significantly curtailed President Donald Trump’s broad executive actions aimed at eliminating federal backing for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
Judge Adam Abelson of the U.S. District Court in Baltimore issued a preliminary injunction, preventing the administration from ending or altering federal contracts deemed to be related to equity.
Abelson determined that the orders likely violated constitutional principles, including freedom of speech.
On his first day in office, Trump issued an order directing federal agencies to terminate all grants or contracts connected to “equity.” A subsequent order required federal contractors to affirm that they do not promote DEI.
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Friday evening.
The plaintiffs, including the city of Baltimore and various higher education organizations, filed a lawsuit earlier in the month, asserting that the executive orders were unconstitutional and an overreach of presidential authority. They also argued that the directives had a chilling effect on free speech.
“What’s happening is an overcorrection and pulling back on DEI statements,” attorney Aleshadye Getachew stated during a nearly three-hour hearing on Wednesday.
The Trump administration has maintained that the president was only targeting DEI programs that contravene federal civil rights laws. Government attorneys contended that the administration should have the authority to align federal spending with the president’s objectives.
“The government doesn’t have the obligation to subsidize plaintiffs’ exercise of speech,” said Justice Department attorney Pardis Gheibi.
Abelson, a Biden appointee, sided with the plaintiffs, agreeing that the executive orders discourage businesses, organizations, 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.
Abelson’s ruling permits the Attorney General to investigate and prepare a report on DEI practices, as outlined in one of the orders, but prohibits its enforcement.
In his written opinion, Abelson stated that there was reason to believe the orders were 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 offered a hypothetical scenario: if an elementary school received Department of Education funding for technology and a teacher used a computer to teach about Jim Crow laws, or if a road construction grant covered potholes in a low-income neighborhood instead of a wealthy one, “does that render it ‘equity-related’?” the judge questioned.
Republican efforts to challenge diversity initiatives have been ongoing for years, arguing that these measures threaten merit-based hiring, promotion, and educational opportunities for white individuals. Supporters, however, argue that these programs help institutions cater to increasingly diverse populations while addressing the long-term effects of systemic racism.
The purpose of DEI initiatives is to create equitable environments in businesses and schools, particularly for historically marginalized communities. While researchers trace DEI initiatives back to the 1960s, more were launched and expanded in 2020 amid increased calls for racial justice.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued in their complaint that Trump’s attempts to abruptly terminate these programs would cause widespread harm, largely due to 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 other areas, according to the complaint.
Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, re-elected last year, has advocated for increased opportunities for the city’s most vulnerable residents, including people of color. Scott was subjected to racist attacks online last year, with some commenters labeling him a “DEI mayor.” He recently coined the phrase “Definitely Earned It” to celebrate the achievements of Black figures throughout history.
In addition to the mayor and the Baltimore City Council, the plaintiffs include the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, and the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, which represents restaurant workers nationwide.
Their attorneys claim that these groups are already experiencing the repercussions of the executive orders as Trump encroaches on the powers of Congress and seeks to suppress viewpoints he disagrees with.
“But the President simply does not wield that power,” they wrote in the complaint. “And contrary to his suggestions otherwise, his power is not limitless.”
“`