A federal judge has effectively halted the implementation of broad executive orders issued by former President Donald Trump intended to eliminate government support for initiatives focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson, presiding in Baltimore, issued a preliminary injunction that prevents the administration from suspending or modifying federal contracts associated with equity initiatives.
Judge Abelson determined that these executive orders likely infringe upon constitutional rights, including protections for free speech. On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order instructing federal agencies to terminate any “equity-related” grants or contracts and subsequently mandated that federal contractors certify they do not promote DEI policies. The White House has yet to respond to requests for comment.
Among the plaintiffs in the case are the city of Baltimore and various higher education institutions, who filed a lawsuit earlier this month claiming the executive orders are unconstitutional and an excessive exercise of presidential power. The plaintiffs also argue that these directives have a detrimental impact on free expression. During a nearly three-hour hearing, attorney Aleshadye Getachew asserted that there is an excessive reaction occurring against DEI initiatives.
The Trump administration contended that the president was solely targeting DEI programs that breach federal civil rights laws. Justice Department attorneys defended the administration’s position, stating that it has the right to align federal funding with the president’s objectives. “The government is not obligated to support the plaintiffs’ speech,” stated Justice Department attorney Pardis Gheibi.
Judge Abelson, nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, sided with the plaintiffs, noting that the executive orders deter organizations from expressing their support for diversity, equity, and inclusion. He remarked that the evident harm stems from the vague and threatening nature of the executive order as it stands publicly.
While Judge Abelson permitted the attorney general to conduct investigations and prepare reports on DEI practices outlined in one of the orders, he prohibited the enforcement of those orders. In his written opinion, Abelson indicated that the broad language in the orders leaves those who receive federal contracts and grants with no clear understanding of how to comply, labeling the orders as unconstitutionally vague.
He presented a possible scenario where a school utilizing federal education funding for a technology project incorporates lessons on historical injustices such as Jim Crow laws, or a road repair grant in underserved neighborhoods raises questions of whether such actions fall under “equity-related” classifications.
Efforts to promote diversity have faced increasing criticism from Republicans, who argue that these measures undermine merit-based opportunities for white Americans. Conversely, proponents assert that such initiatives are essential for addressing the needs of diverse populations and correcting systemic racism’s lasting impact. These programs aim to create equitable environments in both academic and professional settings, particularly for marginalized demographics. Although DEI initiatives have roots stretching back to the 1960s, they gained momentum in 2020 amid heightened demands for racial justice.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys have asserted in their case that Trump’s abrupt attempts to dismantle these initiatives will have widespread negative repercussions, particularly emphasizing the ambiguity inherent in the executive orders. They argue that “ordinary citizens are affected most,” pointing out that the plaintiffs and their constituents receive federal support intended for educators, researchers, students, and communities throughout the nation. With ambiguity surrounding the classification of grants as “equity-related,” the plaintiffs find themselves in a state of uncertainty.
Included among the plaintiffs is the city of Baltimore, which relies on federal funding for essential services across various domains like public safety, housing, and environmental initiatives. Mayor Brandon Scott, who was re-elected last year, has been a vocal advocate for enhancing opportunities for the city’s underprivileged residents, including people of color. He faced online racist backlash in the past, where detractors labeled him a “DEI mayor,” yet he recently emphasized the phrase “Definitely Earned It” to celebrate the achievements of historically marginalized individuals.
Apart from Mayor Scott and the Baltimore City Council, the plaintiffs encompass organizations like the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, and the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, which advocates for restaurant employees nationwide. Their legal representatives argue that the groups are already experiencing the negative effects of the executive orders as Trump challenges Congressional authority and attempts to silence opposing viewpoints.
“The President does not possess that level of authority,” they emphasized in their complaint. “His powers are not boundless, contrary to what he might suggest.”
