Federal Appeals Court Allows Trump DEI Orders to Go Forward

By Meaghan Murphy - Skoler Abbott P.C.

March 20, 2025

On March 14, 2025, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Trump Administration and stayed a preliminary injunction put in place by a lower federal court. The effect of the Fourth Circuit’s decision is that the Trump DEI Executive Orders, which we’ve written about here and here, may be implemented by the Trump Administration (for now, anyway).

As readers of our blog know, in January 2025, President Trump signed two Executive Orders addressing “illegal” diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and policies of not only the federal government, but also of federal contractors, federal grant recipients, and private employers subject to federal anti-discrimination laws. The term “illegal” was not defined.

Shortly thereafter, a lawsuit was filed challenging the legality of the DEI Executive Orders, and a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction based on its findings that key provisions of the DEI Executive Orders were likely unconstitutional. In issuing the preliminary injunction, the federal district court ordered that the Trump Administration could not implement the DEI Executive Orders while the lawsuit over their legality played out. Not surprisingly, the Trump Administration appealed the issuance of the injunction to a federal appeals court.

The Fourth Circuit’s decision to stay the preliminary injunction was unanimous, meaning all three judges on the panel agreed that the stay should issue, but the order itself offers no explanation as to why. It simply states that the Trump Administration “has satisfied the factors for a stay” under applicable law. Notably, however, each judge wrote a concurring opinion that may reveal their individual positions on DEI programs generally. First, Chief Judge Diaz wrote passionately about the importance of “true” DEI programs and that the values underlying such programs are fundamentally American values.

Second, Judge Harris expressed her disagreement with the DEI Executive Orders’ attack on efforts to promote DEI, but she also opined that they were limited in scope and should not be understood to establish that all DEI efforts are illegal. Judge Harris further stated that she appreciated Chief Judge Diaz’s concurrence and shares his sentiments.

Third, Judge Rushing (the only Trump appointee) stated that the Trump Administration is likely to succeed on the merits of the case because the DEI Executive Orders, on their face, are not unconstitutional, and the federal district court should not have ruled otherwise. In addition, Judge Rushing cautioned that judges’ personal opinions on DEI – at which point she quoted Chief Judge Diaz’s concurrence – should play “absolutely no part in deciding this case.”

Thus, while the three-judge panel agreed to stay the injunction, there is clearly some dissension among them regarding DEI programs generally and a court’s role in policing them. Importantly, the Fourth Circuit’s decision to stay the injunction is not a final decision on the merits of the case. It just allows the Trump Administration to enforce the DEI Executive Orders while the case proceeds on an expedited schedule.  

The Plaintiffs in the case may appeal the Fourth Circuit’s decision in the hopes that a higher court will issue a more favorable one. Even if the Plaintiffs do not appeal this particular decision, the case will proceed and ultimately be decided on its merits (unless it is withdrawn before that). As a result, this case may end up at the U.S. Supreme Court, which would have the last word on the legality of the DEI Executive Orders. We’ll keep you updated.

www.skoler-abbott.com