What’s New
A federal judge on Friday issued a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking much of the Trump administration’s sweeping effort to stamp out diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and policies nationwide.
U.S. District Judge Adam B. Abelson, a Biden nominee, found that two executive orders Trump issued on the first two days of his administration were likely unconstitutionally vague and appeared to violate free-speech protections. The administration, he said, must not pause, terminate, or change federal contracts or grants it considers equity-related while a lawsuit filed by the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, and others moves forward.
The Details
Friday’s opinion is likely to energize proponents of diversity initiatives who have struggled to mobilize resistance to Trump’s aggressive efforts to dismantle DEI efforts nationwide.
The diversity officers’ association, known as NADOHE, issued a statement celebrating the preliminary injunction. “This ruling underscores that ensuring equity, diversity, and inclusion are the very goals of federal antidiscrimination law, not a violation of the law,” NADOHE’s president and chief executive officer, Paulette Granberry Russell, said in a written statement distributed by Democracy Forward, which brought the case on behalf of the plaintiffs.
“NADOHE applauds the court for recognizing the irreparable harm of the Trump administration’s executive orders in abridging and chilling unquestionably protected speech and in threatening enforcement action based on unconstitutionally vague and undefined standards,” she added.
The injunction also temporarily blocks the Trump administration from requiring grantees and contractors to “certify” that they aren’t in any way promoting DEI.
Abelson pointed out that “ensuring equity, diversity, and inclusion has long been a goal, and at least in some contexts arguably a requirement, of federal anti-discrimination law.” But in the contested executive orders, the administration declared DEI illegal and said it would end all “equity-related grants or contracts.” It did so without defining what it means by DEI, equity-related grants, or promoting DEI, the judge said.
“Plaintiffs, who have easily established their standing to bring this case and irreparable harm, have shown they are likely to prove the Termination and Enforcement Threat Provisions are unconstitutionally vague on their face,” Abelson wrote.
“Plaintiffs, their members, and other federal contractors and grantees have shown they are unable to know which of their DEI programs (if any) violate federal anti-discrimination laws, and are highly likely to chill their own speech — to self-censor, and reasonably so” because of the certification provision, the order states.
“The possibilities are almost endless, and many are pernicious,” the judge wrote. Abelson outlined scenarios that he considers problematic. For instance, if a university grant helps cover the salary of a staff member “who then helps teach college students about sexual harassment and the language of consent, would the funding for that person’s salary be stripped as ‘equity-related’?” he asked. “If a road-construction grant is used to fill potholes in a low-income neighborhood instead of a wealthy neighborhood, does that render it ‘equity-related’?”
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for clarification or comment. But Trump officials signaled their intention to continue fighting DEI efforts. Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy, wrote on Twitter that Abelson “just nullified the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment, saying the government MUST use DEI to illegally punish Americans based solely on their race and skin color.”
The administration’s executive orders on DEI likely violate free-speech protections and constitute viewpoint discrimination, the judge said. The administration has made clear that it wishes to punish, and “apparently, attempt to extinguish” viewpoints and speech it considers supportive of DEI, the judge wrote. He added that the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that the government can’t suppress disfavored speech by threatening legal sanctions “or other means of coercion.”
Aaron Nisenson, senior counsel of the AAUP, issued a statement welcoming the preliminary injunction. “One of the attempts by the administration to impose their political agenda on higher education has been thwarted,” he said. “But we must continue to fight to maintain the independence of our institutions and the principles of freedom and democracy in this country.”
The Backdrop
The injunction comes as colleges are under intense pressure to decide which of their diversity-related programs the Trump administration might deem illegal. The administration’s executive orders don’t change existing law but seek to expand many experts’ understanding of the scope of the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling banning the consideration of race in college admissions.
The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights amped up the pressure last week by saying colleges must comply with its new rules within two weeks — by February 28 — or risk an investigation that could result in their federal funding being rescinded.
In recent months, many colleges have preemptively shut down diversity offices, fired employees, and erased any mention of diversity and equity from their websites. Those changes, which were largely prompted by state laws taking aim at DEI since 2023, accelerated with Trump’s threats to yank federal funding from colleges that promote diversity efforts.
The Chronicle has tracked 123 bills in 29 states and the U.S. Congress that would dismantle DEI activities. Fifteen have become law. The Chronicle has also logged similar changes across 252 campuses in 36 states, even in states in which no anti-DEI bills had been introduced.
What’s Next
It’s unclear whether Friday’s preliminary injunction will prompt colleges to slow down or halt efforts to dismantle their DEI programs or activities.
On Thursday, a group of law professors and other civil-rights lawyers issued a memo outlining why they felt most college DEI programs are legal and urging colleges to stand by, rather than abandon, them.
