WASHINGTON – A federal judge on Friday largely blocked President Donald Trump’s sweeping executive orders aimed at ending government support for programs promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion.
In Baltimore, U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the administration from terminating or changing federal contracts that are considered equity-related.
Abelson found that the orders are likely to violate constitutional rights, including free speech.
On his first day in office, Trump signed an order directing federal agencies to terminate all “equity-related” grants or contracts. He issued a follow-up order requiring federal contractors to certify that they do not promote DEI.
The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment Friday evening.
The plaintiffs, which included the city of Baltimore and higher education groups, sued the Trump administration earlier this month, claiming that the executive orders are unconstitutional and a clear overreach of presidential authority. They also claim the directives chill free speech.
“What is happening is an overcorrection and retraction of DEI statements,” attorney Aleshadye Getachew said during a nearly three-hour hearing Wednesday.
The Trump administration claims that the president is only targeting DEI programs that violate federal civil rights laws. Attorneys for the government said the administration should be able to match federal spending to the president’s priorities.
“The government has no obligation to subsidize plaintiffs’ freedom of speech,” said Justice Department attorney Pardis Gheibi.
Abelson, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, agreed with the plaintiffs that the executive orders discourage businesses, organizations, and government entities from publicly supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion.
“The harm arises from the issuance of it as a public, vague, and threatening executive order,” he stated at the hearing.
Abelson’s decision authorizes the attorney general to investigate and prepare a report on DEI practices in accordance with one of the orders, but it prohibits enforcement.
According to his written opinion, Abelson believes that the orders are 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 presented a hypothetical scenario in which an elementary school received Department of Education funding for technology access and a teacher used a computer to teach about Jim Crow laws. Or, if a road construction grant paid for pothole repairs in a low-income neighborhood rather than a wealthy neighborhood, “does that render it ‘equity-related’?” the judge inquired.
Republicans have been attacking efforts to increase diversity for years, claiming that the measures threaten merit-based hiring, promotion, and educational opportunities for white people.
However, supporters argue that the programs help institutions meet the needs of increasingly diverse populations while also addressing the long-term effects of systemic racism.
Their goal was to create more equitable environments in businesses and schools, particularly for historically marginalized communities. Although researchers claim that DEI initiatives date back to the 1960s, more were launched and expanded in 2020 amid increased calls for racial justice.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys argued in their complaint that Trump’s efforts to abruptly end such programs will cause widespread harm, owing to the vague language in his executive orders.
“Ordinary citizens bear the brunt,” they wrote. “Plaintiffs and their members receive federal funds to assist educators, academics, students, workers, and communities throughout the country. Plaintiffs are left in limbo while federal agencies make arbitrary decisions about whether grants are “equity-related.”
The plaintiffs include the city of Baltimore, which receives federal funding for public safety, housing, the environment, infrastructure, and other purposes, according to the complaint.
Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, who was reelected last year, has advocated for more opportunities for the city’s most vulnerable residents, particularly people of color.
Scott was the target of racist online attacks last year, with some commenters labeling him a “DEI mayor,” and he recently coined the phrase “Definitely Earned It” to highlight the accomplishments of Black figures throughout history.
In addition to the mayor and the Baltimore City Council, the plaintiffs are the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, and Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, which represents restaurant workers nationwide.
Their attorneys claim the groups are already feeling the effects of Trump’s executive orders, which encroach on Congress’s powers and seek to suppress opposing viewpoints.
“But the President simply does not wield that power,” they claimed in their complaint. “And contrary to his suggestions otherwise, his power is not limitless.”
