Federal Court Blocks Key Provisions of Trump DEI Orders

By Meaghan Murphy - Skoler Abbott P.C.

March 12, 2025

On February 21, 2025, a U.S. federal district court in Maryland issued a nationwide injunction temporarily blocking key provisions of the two Executive Orders targeting both public and private sector diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) or diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) programs. When we previously wrote about President Trump’s two DEI-related Executive Orders here, we all but promised there would be legal challenges to them, and here we are.

A Quick Recap

In January, President Trump signed two Executive Orders targeting DEI programs:

1. Executive Order entitled “Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing – The White House.” This Order requires all federal agencies to terminate their own “illegal” DEI programs and eliminate all Chief Diversity Officers and other DEI-related positions. Pursuant to this Order, many federal employees were placed on paid administrative leave ahead of anticipated layoffs. This Order only applies to federal agencies.

2. Executive Order entitled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity – The White House” (“DEI Order”). The DEI Order rescinds affirmative action requirements in government contracting, and directs federal agencies to take an aggressive approach toward what they view as “illegal” DEI or DEIA programs and policies of both government contractors and private employers. It also mandates that businesses receiving federal grants must certify that their DEI programs do not violate federal civil rights laws.

These two Executive Orders sent a clear message about the Trump Administration’s belief that DEI and DEIA programs violate federal civil rights laws, and its intent to take actions against employers to eradicate such programs. Not surprisingly, legal challenges followed.

A Federal Lawsuit

The lawsuit at issue here was filed by four plaintiffs – the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore – who contend that their rights are violated by various aspects of the Executive Orders (“Plaintiffs”).

In the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs asked the court to immediately issue a preliminary injunction, which is an order that would prohibit the federal government from enforcing certain key provisions of the Executive Orders while the lawsuit plays out.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the Plaintiffs are required to show, among other things, that they are likely to ultimately succeed on the merits of the case, and that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm without an immediate injunction.

The Federal Court Enjoins the Executive Orders

The court was persuaded by the Plaintiffs’ arguments and issued the requested injunction. As described in detail in a lengthy written decision, the court found that the Plaintiffs are likely to be able to show that the following three key provisions of the Executive Orders are unconstitutional:

1. Requiring federal agencies to cancel funding for any programs deemed “equity-related.” (“Termination Provision”);
2. Requiring federal contractors and grant recipients to include in every contract or grant award a certification enforceable through the False Claims Act that the contractor or grantee does not operate “illegal DEI” programs (“Certification Provision”); and
3. Directing the U.S. Attorney General to take appropriate measures to encourage the private sector to end illegal DEI and to identify civil compliance investigations to accomplish the same (“Enforcement Threat Provision”).

According to the court, those three provisions likely violate either the First Amendment’s free speech protections or the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against laws, policies or regulations which are so vague that people cannot understand what they mean (i.e. what it requires them to do or prohibits them from doing). Generally, laws, policies or regulations that are unconstitutional are invalid, and therefore, cannot be enforced against any person, business or other entity.

In its decision, the court elaborated on why each of the three provisions is likely unconstitutional. The court ruled that the Termination Provision fails to define critical terms, such as “equity,” “equity-related,” “DEI,” and “illegal DEI.” The failure to define those terms, according to the court, likely renders it unconstitutionally vague, because it leaves contractors and grant recipients unable to determine whether their contracts or grants will be terminated or how to comply with the Executive Orders.

As to the Certification Provision, the court ruled that it likely violates the First Amendment’s free speech protections, because it requires contractors and grant recipients to certify that they do not operate “illegal DEI” programs (whatever that term means), with False Claims Act liability and penalties hanging over their heads.

As to the Enforcement Threat Provision, which applies to private employers, the court ruled that it also likely violates free speech protections, because it fails to define critical terms or clarify what constitutes illegal DEI, and therefore, will chill (i.e. discourage) DEI-related speech.

As a result, the court issued a preliminary injunction temporarily prohibiting the Trump Administration from enforcing the three provisions described above. Notably, the preliminary injunction applies not just to the Plaintiffs, but to all similarly situated contractors, grant recipients, and private employers nationwide.

The Trump Administration sought a “stay” of the preliminary injunction.  In other words, they asked the court to “pause” enforcing the preliminary injunction.  The court denied the motion.

What Does This Mean for Employers?

For now, employers can continue to implement their DEI or DEIA policies or programs without immediate legal risk at the federal level. With that said, employers should continue to review their policies or programs to ensure compliance with both state and federal law. The federal court’s injunction may only be a temporary reprieve from the Executive Orders. The defendants in this case, including President Trump and the U.S. Attorney General, have already filed an appeal with the Fourth Circuit, and this case may make it all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which would have the last word on the legality of the Executive Orders. As always, we will keep you updated.

www.skoler-abbott.com