Judge Blocks Trump’s DEI Executive Orders

A federal judge in Maryland issued an injunction Feb. 21 blocking the Trump administration from enforcing executive orders ending government support for diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.

U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson granted a preliminary nationwide injunction preventing the administration from terminating or changing federal contracts it considered equity-related.

Abelson found that provisions in two executive orders—issued in the first two days of the Trump administration—were constitutionally vague and likely violated First Amendment free speech rights.

One executive order, issued Jan. 20, directed federal agencies to terminate all equity-related grants or contracts.

The following day, another order directed federal contractors to certify they do not promote DEI initiatives, exposing employers to potential liability under the False Claims Act.

The Jan. 21 directive repealed a 1965 executive order that first established affirmative action requirements for government contractors.

Federal Agency Directives

That executive order also required federal agencies to identify up to nine private-sector employers for potential “civil compliance investigations.”

Numerous federal agencies moved quickly to enforce the two orders, issuing a flurry of directives.

For instance, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent a Jan. 29 letter directing grant recipients to “immediately terminate, to the maximum extent, all programs, personnel, activities, or contracts promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion at every level and activity.”

CBIA’s Feb. 25 Human Resources Conference features in-depth discussions about the Trump administration’s impact on the workplace.

On Feb. 5, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi directed Department of Justice employees to submit reports that:

• Confirmed the termination of equity-related grants or contracts
• Identified federal contractors and grantees who provided DEI training or DEI training materials since Jan. 20, 2021
• Identified grantees who received federal funding “to provide or advance DEI, DEIA, or environmental justice programs, services, or activities” since Jan. 20, 2021

She issued a separate memo the same day directing DOJ to “investigate, eliminate, and penalize illegal DEI and DEIA preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities in the private sector and in educational institutions that receive federal funds.”

Blocked Provisions

The Feb. 21 injunction temporarily blocks three key provisions of the two executive orders:

• A provision that required federal agencies to terminate “equity-related grants or contracts”
• A provision that required federal contractors and subcontractors to certify for purposes of FCA liability that they do not operate unlawful DEI programs
• A provision directing the attorney general to enforce civil rights laws against DEI programs in the private sector

Abelson issued the injunction in response to a lawsuit filed Feb. 3 by Baltimore’s mayor and city council and a coalition of DEI advocates.

The suit argued that the executive orders were unconstitutional, an overreach of presidential authority, and “chilled” free speech.

“The harm arises from the issuance of it as a public, vague, threatening executive order.”

U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson

Abelson agreed with plaintiffs’ claims that the executive orders discouraged businesses, organizations, and public entities from supporting DEI initiatives.

“The harm arises from the issuance of it as a public, vague, threatening executive order,” he said.

In a 63-page opinion, he wrote that the executive orders failed to define terms such as “equity-related,” “promoting DEI,” “illegal DEI,” or “illegal discrimination or preferences.”

He wrote that the Jan. 21 order “leaves the private sector at a loss for whether the administration will deem a particular policy, program, discussion, announcement, etc. to be among the ‘preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities’ the administration now deems ‘illegal.'”

The Trump administration is expected to appeal the injunction, with many of the raised constitutional issues likely to eventually send the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.