Judge Halts Key Parts of Trump’s DEI Orders
White House responds: A judge cannot nullify the Civil Rights Act and order the government to award federal taxpayer dollars to organizations that discriminate based on race
A federal court has thrown a monkey wrench into President Trump’s aggressive attempts to rid the country of DEI. In an early ruling, a judge temporarily blocked key parts of the President’s Executive Orders to end discriminatory “diversity, equity, and inclusion” programs.
Maryland federal district court Judge Adam Abelson, a recent Biden appointee, ruled that the White House directives likely violated the Constitution.
Earlier this month, a group of diversity officers and professors sued the administration, claiming its orders to terminate DEI grants, require DEI certifications, and bring enforcement actions were void for vagueness and violated their First Amendment rights to free speech.
The government argued its orders were expressly limited to DEI programs that violated federal civil rights laws—laws the groups have no First Amendment right to break in the first place—but to no avail.
The court said the administration failed to define key terms in the orders, such as “DEI,” “let alone identify the types of programs or policies the administration considers ‘illegal.'” That left individuals and organizations with “no reasonable way to know what, if anything, they can do to bring their grants into compliance such that they are not considered ‘equity-related.’”
Judge Abelson also barred the government from requiring grantees to certify they don’t promote DEI programs in any way, even where the DEI-related activities occur outside the scope of the federal funding. But, the court held, the law prohibits “the government leveraging its funding to restrict federal contractors and grantees from otherwise exercising their First Amendment rights.”
Enforcement of the orders—which the court called “textbook viewpoint-based discrimination”—is also temporarily blocked.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller blasted the decision on X—arguing that a judge cannot nullify the Civil Rights Act and order the government to award federal taxpayer dollars to organizations that discriminate based on race:
DEI is illegal race-based discrimination in violation of the federal Civil Rights Act. A judge cannot nullify the Civil Rights Acts and order the government to award federal taxpayer dollars to organizations that discriminate based on race. https://t.co/j4tHkYPOd8
— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) February 22, 2025
For now, the court’s ruling, embedded below, bars the administration (excluding the President) from ending DEI grants, requiring DEI certifications, and bringing enforcement actions. Meanwhile, as the Administration wrestles with how to respond to this latest order, it is likely to become increasingly obvious that the flaws the court seizes on—notably, that the orders are impermissibly vague—are exactly what makes DEI initiatives such an insidious threat. Race-based discrimination in the name of vague notions of “equity” and “inclusion” is a scourge the president promised, early in his campaign, to end. The only question, as the litigation plays out, is how much of that promise will be fulfilled by way of Executive Order.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It’s simple: If an entity does something that violates the Civil Rights Act(s) then they break the law. That means that DEI actions are illegal, does it not?
Am I missing something?
.
Not necessarily. “DEI action” is very poorly defined, so it’s not automatically obvious that “DEI actions are illegal”. Those that violate the law are, but you can’t say that all such actions do violate the law without first pinning down exactly what you mean by it. And that’s the plaintiffs’ claim; that the order is void for vagueness. In any specific case the government can argue that this action is illegal, and it can sue and/or cut off funds.
The government seems to be saying that in practice that’s obviously how it’s going to have to work. If you’re violating the law then you shouldn’t be, and your grant will be cut off, and you will probably be sued. If you’re not violating the law then you have nothing to fear. And if we disagree on whether you’re violating the law we’ll take it to court. So what’s your problem?
Not sure everything’s coming up Millhouse this time…
https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/02/supreme-court-to-hear-oral-argument-in-case-called-the-final-nail-in-deis-coffin/
Huh? How is that relevant? Or are you just incapable of reading and understanding what you linked to?
Regardless of how that case turns out (and there really shouldn’t be any question about that), “DEI” will remain a vague term that can’t properly be addressed by any legal action. Specific instances can and will be, but not the term itself, because no one can say exactly what it means.
Looks like the people writing these things need to quit shorthanding with terms such as ‘DEI’ and start explicitly targeting its unconstitutionally discriminatory foundation. I’d rather not see this turn into a right-wing version of banning ‘assault weapons.’
Let’s all downvote Millhouse if we don’t like what the law says, no matter how accurately he describes it!
Yeah, that’s a great strategy. Then we can blame the judges when we lose a losing lawsuit.
If only he were.
Instead, he plays the semantic games leftists always play.–
“DEI action” is very poorly defined, so it’s not automatically obvious that “DEI actions are illegal”
Except they’re not.
When a person is given a job just for the color of their skin, and those doing it EXPLICITLY say so, that’s a DEI action, and it is illegal –because those same people DOING it made it illegal.
And yet we were all forced to accept Kamala Harris as if she were a legitimate VP and not a DEI hire.
All of these things are quite explicit– because the left thinks it holds the reins of power and always will, so they don’t bother to hide.
Instead they use things like Milhouse to tell us not to believe our lying eyes.
Worse, things like Milhouse –and you– do it for free.
I’ve been a regular reader of LI for the past 15 years. It often seems to me that the only commentator here who actually reads the posts of the editors and the legal opinions posted here is Milhouse. Most of the commentators here just spout the usual talking points from all of the other pro-Trump blogs on the Internet, without ever reading anything else. and whatever Milhouse posts, everyone attacks him. This is strange for a blog by a law professor, where in law school dissent and disagreement is actually encouraged. Unfortunately, this blog may soon become just another hive like the leftist blogs where everyone agrees with everyone else and no dissent is ever tolerated. Like the Borg. You must be assimilated.
No one’s keeping you here.
As much as it pains me to agree with JR on anything, this time he’s right. There’s a lot of messenger-shooting directed at Millhouse.
No one cares what you think, JR.
I fail to see anyone here providing an example of a “DEI Policy” decision/act that is NOT discriminatory in violation of the Civil Rights Act. One can say that they do/must exist and therefore the term is void for vagueness, but since the very purpose of any decision/act under a DEI Policy is to discriminate against some disfavored people on the basis of race or another protected class, then why does that term need to be further defined?
Illegal or not, Trump wins either way. SCOTUS here we come. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
How many adjudicated losses does EPP have under its belt?
I’m guessing ZERO….
EPP is irrelevant to this case. EPP goes after specific instances where it has identified a violation of the law. It doesn’t issue a blanket threat against “all DEI”, which is what these plaintiffs are complaining about.
So the government can basically shut down the economy, churches, schools, forbid people from gathering, holding funerals etc etc
and that wasn’t violating any civil rights??
True, but irrelevant to this case.
Because that’s (D)ifferent.
But yeah. We can all lay down and take one in the ass, when the (D)emocrats violate the law, and when we are expected to follow the delay tactics of the (D)ifferent people.
SCOTUS needs to man up and slap these lawsuits down once and for all.
That and just not making money available for any DEI related grants while at the same time continuing to removing anyone in a DEI related job.
No worries. Just tell the CT that since the Executive Branch can’t enforce Civil Rights Act that they unilaterally release all entities under any prior consent decree alleging Civil Rights violations. If the judiciary and the d/prog keep seemingly insisting that this is ‘year zero’ then just go along with it and create a blank slate.
No one is claiming the executive can’t enforce the Civil Rights Act. The complaint is that the order is vague, and they have “no reasonable way to know what, if anything, they can do to bring their grants into compliance such that they are not considered ‘equity-related.’”
The government’s answer seems to be, just consider whether you’re violating the law. If you’re confident that you’re not, and that the courts will agree that you’re not, then keep doing what you’re doing. If you know you’re breaking the law then stop. And if you’re not sure then err on the side of caution, or prepare to go to court and we’ll find out one way or the other.
Didn’t Roberts say that the best way to stop racial discrimination is by stopping discriminating by race?
This seems simple on its face – any race based policy is a violation of the Civil Rights Act, period. DEI, on its face, targets people based on their racial background.
That’s no longer allowed.
That’s just the problem. “DEI” doesn’t have a “face”. It’s a vague term, and means different things to different people.
Bull.
It means discrimination.
No, it doesn’t. It means that to some people, but not to others. It doesn’t have a fixed meaning, so you can’t make any definitive statement about it. And that’s the plaintiffs’ point. In any specific instance, if there is a violation of the civil rights laws you can point to that violation. But you can’t make a general statement about “all DEI” without first defining it.
In point of fact this CT did bar enforcement. IMO This assertion of ‘vagueness’ is disingenuous. The Civil Rights Act is pretty simple at heart; don’t discriminate based on immutable characteristics, group membership and instead use transparent standards to judge individual merit. If that’s too hard then just remember to treat others as you want to be treated. We routinely did this prior to DEI. Removing DEI isn’t hard to understand. Do what you did prior to DEI.
Let’s get MS Dillon confirmed as head of Civil Rights Division at DoJ and I’m sure she’d be happy to explain it to anyone with questions. In the meantime though eff it b/c some want year one so they should get it, good and hard….with a reminder that Marbury v Madison was NOT applicable in year one ….
The court did not bar enforcement of the Civil Rights laws. It only barred enforcement of a vague executive order. The government remains absolutely free to sue anyone whom it thinks is violating the law. To do that it obviously has to say specifically which clause of which law is being violated, and what the violation consists of. That’s not vague at all.
And that seems to be the government’s response: all we’ve done is tell people to obey the law. The executive order itself doesn’t really do anything, it just orders the government to enforce the law. So if you believe that whatever it is you’re doing is legal then you should have no problem.
All of DEI violates civil rights laws. There’s nothing in it, in theory or practice, that isn’t about discriminating to favor the “victim” over the “oppressor” — based entirely on the opinion of the person making the choice.
You are making the argument for me. The EO essentially does just what you state,
1. Discard DEI nonsense
2. Obey the Civil Rights Act provisions as they were prior to DEI nonsense
3. Lose funding if you don’t do.so
What’s the confusion? What is vague? Nothing. All they gotta do is apply the Civil Rights Act as they did in the status quo ante prior to DEI… assuming they were in compliance back then.
There’s not any ‘confusion’. The better description is ‘apprehension’ that their use of DEI is in violation of the Civil Rights Act. That their discriminatory policies of seeking to impose ‘equity’ via illegal quotas or preferences or other shenanigans within their programs to favor some groups and disfavor others will be ended by the Trump DoJ without a fig leaf of.DEI. No worries send DoJ to review their policies and audit their programs to assist in ending their ‘confusion’. Surely these plaintiffs won’t object to the scrutiny they have invited as the DoJ assists them in implementing a bias free and totes non discriminatory environment.
Crawford, you are simply not telling the truth. “All of DEI violates civil rights laws” is a falsehood, because there is no one definition of DEI. You can say that this DEI action violates the law, and that one does, and the other one does, but you can’t make a general statement about all of them.
Chief, you are essentially presenting what I presented above as the government’s probable response. But that doesn’t change what the plaintiffs’ complaint is. First we have to understand the complaint, then we can consider a response.
Imagine a plaintiff who says “Look I run a DEI program and I don’t believe I’m breaking any laws. Now here comes this executive order and threatens my funding, and I don’t know what I’m supposed to do to comply with it. Therefore the order is vague.”
The answer would be, just look at the civil rights laws. If you’re confident that your DEI program complies with them, then ignore the order and carry on. Sooner or later we’ll have a look at you in particular, and you can explain how it’s legal, and if we agree with you we’ll leave you alone. If we disagree with your conclusion, you can then either alter your program as we direct you, or we can sue you and let the courts figure out who’s right. I mean, that’s how pretty much any law works.
Milhouse
We obviously disagree on whether the plaintiffs argument about ‘vagueness’ are legitimate. I don’t believe they are nor do I believe they or the CT here doesn’t truly understand the intent of the Trump WH EO.
Instead we have another instance of the Judiciary and lefty wokiesta plaintiffs playing ‘Calvin Ball’. The perception is buttressed by the venue shopping, the rapid TRO then extensions, some issued Ex Parte. They all.seem to initially cut one direction even when their breadth is later walked back by the CT which issued them.
The Judiciary relies upon the willingness of the People and the other Co Equal Branches to submit to their rulings. When the perception that the Judiciary isn’t on balance playing straight becomes the norm then the foundation of legitimacy required by the Judiciary to sustain its decisions cracks.
IMO we are drawing closer to the point where a united Congress and Executive disband the inferior Courts. Totes within the power of Congress to do so and not jack the Judiciary can do to halt it b/c it is an explicit power. Then they realign the Circuits, reauthorize the inferior CTs in the new format and empower Trump to fill 100% vacancies created at District and Circuit level as a result.
Prior to that nuke option there are some other steps like reassignment of US Marshals away from their role to the AZ border chasing illegals. Perhaps reassignment of all Treasury employees who handle transfers to the Judicial Branch leaving the CT the option to allow political appointees access to payment systems or getting their funding temp interrupted until end of the FY.
Lots of ways the Executive and Congress can push back if they choose to wield their power to do so in a similar way as the Judiciary seems to be doing. For that matter the People themselves need to be convinced the Judiciary is playing straight lest they become ‘ungovernable’ from the bench.
How vague can it be when colleges have entire offices designated for Diversity Equity and inclusion?
https://hsc.unm.edu/diversity/
Seems pretty fucking clear to me.
Where the hell is the Supreme Court
Enough!!!!
Don’t count on them. They are a Republican Court not a conservative court. Especially with this much Dem inspired villainy on the line.
It’s Trump’s Supreme Court. Take it up with Trump.
It’s not “Trump’s Supreme Court,” you idiot. The judiciary is separate from the executive.
As you should know from the often-surprising arguments of Coney-Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.
Jeeze. I thought you were a lawyer?
Is it possible that SCOTUS is waiting for Trump to enforce Executive, and then they will rule on that?
I think that both Scotus and Trump understand that ultimately the USSC is going to have to hear and decide a case on whether the President or the bureaucracy controls the executive branch of government.
Until then Trump, his team and Doge should just keep on doing what they are doing. Get rid of waste, fraud and or abuse and excess personnel wherever possible and if they are blocked expose the out-of-control administrative state. They are building a huge amount of public support and at the same time the Fed district courts are creating a massive swell of public disdain by blocking so many commonsense actions of the President and his team. I suspect that more than a couple of the Supreme Court justices are upset and embarrassed by the blatant partisanship shown by the leftist judges and are ready and willing to slam down the hammer on them.
It’s going to take President Trump to tell a Leftist Hack Judge to go pound sand to get Roberts into action and cut these Judges off or let them run the country.
Wow. That judge just said the equal protection clause is null and void.
No, he didn’t. He just didn’t. You don’t have to like the order but don’t misrepresent it.
This isn’t about the equal protection clause, or the Civil Rights Act, it’s about what actions the government can take to enforce them.
So the government can’t stop discriminating on the basis of race because it violates the equal protection clause or the Civil Rights Act?
Sure it can. In any specific instance where it sees a violation, it can follow the normal procedure and sue.
But that’s not what’s happening here. Or at least that’s not what the plaintiffs perceive to be happening here. All you have is a vaguely worded executive order with a lot of handwaving, and remedies that are not necessarily available to the government. Laws and government edicts have to be specific, so people are on notice of what they must do to comply with them. A law that uses poorly defined terms is void for vagueness.
The administration’s response seems to be that it’s not really vague, because it refers to the existing law, and you can just look at that to see whether you’re in compliance. If you’re confident that you’re not breaking the law then you have nothing to worry about.
I’m having trouble understanding what reason anyone could have for downvoting a comment that (no disrespect intended to your typically clear explanation) should be self-evident.
What? That’s the second silliest thing I’ve read in the last 40 minutes.
Milhouse, stop talking to yourself.
This sock is getting too obvious.
It comes in defending every lie you tell.
“Recent Biden Appointee”
Who’s surprised by this? Certainly not me. After watching Sen. Kennedy expose these nominees for the partisan hacks that they are I’m surprised it’s not more prevalent.
The corrupt pedophile might be out of office but the damage he did will continue long after he sheds his mortal coils.
Now they suddenly care about the first amendment…when it can be weaponized to hamstring opponents by miring them in government bureaucracy and lawfare.
I’m a paranoid (with bells on) but the only long-term action I see DEI (and the reasonable opposition to it) is one of tearing the country apart
Ok. Clean it up by clarifying that government employees cannot, in any way, discriminate on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origins, or sexual orientation (excluding male/female discrimination where traditionally appropriate). Nor can they espouse it in any way in their role as government employees. Justifying it as employer control over employees speaking for the employer. Then extend it to grants etc from the government under the Spending Clause.
Yes, that is nice and specific. And entirely correct. The chances are very high that all of the plaintiffs’ programs do violate the law, and they know exactly what they need to do to bring themselves into compliance. But with a vaguely worded order they can pretend ignorance.
DEI is the systemic, institutional practice of Diversity (e.g. racism, sexism, etc.). It is a legacy doctrine that is no longer a viable choice and should be aborted with prejudice.
Critical Diversity Theory (CDT) requires us to assume that Diversity is a clear and progressive condition and practice in institutions and systems that use class-disordered ideologies to select individuals based on color and class generally
You just made two posts that I understood 100%. Delighted to see you back with your meds properly adjusted. Looking forward to seeing much less fetal carbon sequestration.
It would probably be easier to eliminate all current subsidies. And then introduce those that will be awarded, but on condition that a declaration is made that the entity applying for these subsidies does not carry out any actions towards students because of their race. It is important that a specific person makes such a declaration, it will change a lot.
Does everybody have the absolute right to federal funds? That seems to be the argument at hand. Without such a right, then we’re discussing discretion and whether the discretion belongs to the executive agency or to the executive himself.
DEI is, in fact vague, however so is pornography and like pornography, it’s in the eye of the beholder. Does any executive agency have the power to use its ‘eye’ to make the determination or does that power actually belong to the executive?
This isn’t an issue that prohibits an individual from deciding for himself how to use his own resources; the issue is who decides how federal resources will be used. This DEI issue seems to be one between the President and one of his agencies.
The President can and must decide whether his agencies are following the law and seeking to ensure the best use of allocated funds. The courts, it appears, has decided that the executive agencies rather than the President is supreme and that their word is final. If the latter is true, then what point is there in voting for a President?