WASHINGTON (AP) — On Friday, a federal judge significantly halted broad executive orders from President Donald Trump aimed at terminating government backing for initiatives that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.
U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson, based in Baltimore, issued a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from discontinuing or altering federal contracts deemed equity-related.
Abelson determined that the orders likely present constitutional infringements, including violations of free-speech protections.
On his first day in office, Trump issued an order mandating federal agencies to eliminate all “equity-related” contracts or grants. He later signed a supplementary order that requires federal contractors to affirm they do not advocate for DEI initiatives.
The White House did not respond immediately to a request for comment on Friday evening.
The plaintiffs — such as the city of Baltimore and various higher education organizations — filed suit against the Trump administration earlier this month, claiming the executive orders are unconstitutional and represent a clear overextension of presidential authority. They also contend that the directives create a chilling effect on free speech.
“What’s happening is an overcorrection, retracting DEI statements,” attorney Aleshadye Getachew mentioned during a nearly three-hour hearing on Wednesday.
The Trump administration maintains that the president’s focus is solely on DEI programs that infringe upon federal civil rights laws. Government attorneys argue that the administration should have the ability to align federal funding with the president’s agenda.
“The government is not obligated to subsidize the plaintiffs’ expression of speech,” asserted Justice Department attorney Pardis Gheibi.
Abelson, nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, concurred with the plaintiffs that the executive orders discourage businesses, organizations, and public entities from openly endorsing diversity, equity, and inclusion.
“The harm stems from the issuance of it as a public, unclear, and menacing executive order,” he noted during the hearing.
While Abelson’s ruling permits the attorney general to investigate and compile a report on DEI practices as directed by one of the orders, it prohibits enforcement of the orders.
In his written opinion, Abelson expressed concerns 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 comply with the grants.”
He illustrated a hypothetical situation where an elementary school receiving federal Department of Education funding for technology may face uncertainty if a teacher uses a computer to instruct on Jim Crow laws. Similarly, if funds for road construction were used to repair potholes in a low-income area instead of a wealthy one, “does that make it ‘equity-related’?” the judge questioned.
Efforts to promote diversity have faced scrutiny from Republicans for years, who argue that such measures jeopardize merit-based hiring, promotions, and educational opportunities for white individuals. Supporters assert that these programs are essential for helping institutions cater to increasingly diverse populations while combating the enduring effects of systemic racism.
Their goal has been to cultivate equitable environments in workplaces and educational institutions, particularly for historically marginalized groups. While researchers assert that DEI initiatives originated in the 1960s, many were introduced and expanded in 2020 amid heightened demands for racial justice.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys argued in their lawsuit that Trump’s abrupt termination of these programs would lead to widespread damage, particularly due to the ambiguous language in his executive orders.
“Ordinary citizens bear the brunt,” they stated. “Plaintiffs and their members rely on federal funds to support educators, academics, students, workers, and communities nationwide. As federal agencies make random decisions about what constitutes ‘equity-related’ grants, Plaintiffs find themselves in uncertainty.”
The plaintiffs include the city of Baltimore, which receives federal funding for public safety, housing, the environment, infrastructure, and more, as outlined in the complaint.
Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, who secured reelection last year, has advocated for initiatives to enhance opportunities for the city’s most vulnerable populations, including people of color. Scott faced racist vitriol online last year, with some commenters labeling him a “DEI mayor,” and he recently coined the phrase “Definitely Earned It” to celebrate the achievements of Black figures throughout history.
In addition to the mayor and the Baltimore City Council, the plaintiffs include the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, and the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, which supports restaurant workers nationwide.
Their attorneys argue that these groups are already experiencing the repercussions of the executive orders as Trump encroaches on Congress’s powers and attempts to silence opposing viewpoints.
“But the President simply does not possess that authority,” they asserted in the complaint. “Contrary to his claims, his power is not infinite.”
