{"id":9767,"date":"2026-02-02T03:24:53","date_gmt":"2026-02-02T03:24:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/federal-court-issues-preliminary-injunction-blocking-key-provisions-of-president-trumps-dei-related-executive-orders\/"},"modified":"2026-02-02T03:24:53","modified_gmt":"2026-02-02T03:24:53","slug":"federal-court-issues-preliminary-injunction-blocking-key-provisions-of-president-trumps-dei-related-executive-orders","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/federal-court-issues-preliminary-injunction-blocking-key-provisions-of-president-trumps-dei-related-executive-orders\/","title":{"rendered":"Federal Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Blocking Key Provisions of President Trump\u2019s DEI-Related Executive Orders"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div id=\"contentSummaryCollapse\" style=\"--intro-p-height: 10.3125rem;\">\n<div class=\"inner-collapse\">\n<p><strong>March 17, 2025 Update.<\/strong> On March 14, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted a stay of the preliminary injunction pending the government\u2019s appeal.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0*<\/p>\n<p>On February 21, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the federal government from implementing certain provisions of President Trump\u2019s January\u00a020 and January\u00a021 Executive Orders related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (\u201cDEI\u201d or \u201cDEIA\u201d), finding those provisions are unconstitutionally vague and infringe upon free speech. Specifically, the court blocked: (i)\u00a0the termination of \u201cequity-related\u201d grants or contracts with the federal government; (ii)\u00a0requirements that federal contractors certify that their compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws is material for purposes of the False Claims Act, and that they do not operate \u201cany programs promoting DEI\u201d; and (iii)\u00a0any enforcement actions based on President Trump\u2019s instruction to the Attorney General to create a \u201cstrategic enforcement plan\u201d with \u201cspecific steps or measures to deter DEI programs or principles\u00a0\u2026 that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences.\u201d Significantly, the court did <strong><em>not<\/em><\/strong> enjoin the Attorney General from preparing a \u201cstrategic enforcement plan,\u201d or engaging in investigations of DEI practices.<\/p>\n<p class=\"ql-align-center\" style=\"text-align: center;\">*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0*<\/p>\n<p>In <em>National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education<\/em>\u00a0v. <em>Trump<\/em>, a group of plaintiffs including the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland, challenged three provisions of President Trump\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.whitehouse.gov\/presidential-actions\/2025\/01\/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">January 20<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.whitehouse.gov\/presidential-actions\/2025\/01\/ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based-opportunity\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">January 21<\/a> DEI-Related Executive Orders, which we previously discussed here. The challenged provisions include:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The \u201cTermination Provision,\u201d which requires all federal agencies to \u201cterminate\u00a0\u2026 \u2018equity-related\u2019 grants or contracts.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>The \u201cCertification Provision,\u201d which requires all federal grants and contracts to include terms requiring that the contractor or grantee (i)\u00a0\u201cagree that its compliance in all respects with all applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws is material to the government\u2019s payment decisions for purposes of [the False Claims Act];\u201d and (ii)\u00a0\u201ccertify that it does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>The \u201cEnforcement Threat Provision,\u201d which requires the Attorney General to issue a report \u201ccontaining recommendations for enforcing Federal civil-rights laws and taking other appropriate measures to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI\u201d and which \u201cshall contain a proposed strategic enforcement plan\u201d that will identify \u201cspecific steps or measures to deter DEI programs or principles\u00a0\u2026 that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences.\u201d The plan will also include the identification by each federal agency of \u201cup to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500\u00a0million dollars or more, State and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1\u00a0billion dollars.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The court held that the plaintiffs are likely to be able to prove that the Termination Provision and Certification Provision are \u201cunconstitutionally vague on their face,\u201d in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, because the Executive Orders \u201cdo not define any of the operative terms, such as \u2018DEI,\u2019 \u2018equity-related,\u2019 \u2018promoting DEI,\u2019 \u2018illegal DEI,\u2019 \u2018illegal DEI and DEIA policies,\u2019 or \u2018illegal discrimination or preferences,\u2019\u2014let alone identify the types of programs or policies the administration considers \u2018illegal\u2019\u201d such that contractors and grantees will have \u201cno idea whether the administration will deem their contractors or grants, or work they are doing, or speech they are engaged in, to be \u2018equity related.\u2019\u201d The court also held that the Enforcement Threat Provision is likely to be unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause because it threatens the entire \u201c\u2018private sector\u2019 with enforcement actions based on\u00a0\u2026 vague, undefined standards.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The court also found that the plaintiffs are likely to be able to prove that the Certification Provision and Enforcement Threat Provision unconstitutionally abridge free speech in violation of the First Amendment. The court wrote that the Certification Provision \u201con its face\u00a0\u2026 constitutes a content-based restriction on the speech rights of federal contractors and grantees, and\u00a0\u2026 expands to all of those contractors\u2019 and grantees work, whether funded by the government or not\u201d such that the \u201cclear purpose, and clear effect, of the Certification Provision is to restrict speech related to topics such as equity, inclusion, and diversity that also falls outside the scope of the federal funding.\u201d With respect to the Enforcement Threat Provision, the court wrote that it likely \u201cviolates the First Amendment, because it threatens to initiate<em> enforcement actions<\/em> against Plaintiffs (in the form of civil compliance investigations) for engaging in protected speech,\u201d including because it \u201cexpressly focuses on \u2018deter[ring] DEI programs or principles that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences\u2019 and \u2018encourag[ing] the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI,\u2019 without, for example, a similar restriction on anti-DEI principles that may also be in violation of existing federal <em>anti<\/em>-discrimination laws.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Accordingly, the court found that \u201cPlaintiffs have shown they are entitled to [a nationwide] injunction as to the Termination, Certification and Enforcement Threat Provisions, whether as applied to Plaintiffs or to others.\u201d The court declined, however, to \u201cenjoin the Attorney General from preparing the report pursuant to the [January 21 Executive] Order or engaging in investigation\u201d for \u201cprudential and separation-of-powers reasons.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Employers should continue to closely monitor the changing political and legal landscape in this area and be mindful that this decision does not block the federal government from continuing to investigate DEI practices. The government is expected to appeal this decision, which comes shortly after civil rights organizations filed challenges to the DEI-related Executive Orders in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.<\/p>\n<p class=\"ql-align-center\" style=\"text-align: center;\">*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0*<\/p>\n<p>Find more Blog posts about litigation and regulatory developments that affect the workplace\u00a0here.<\/p>\n<p>View other S&amp;C insights relating to\u00a0President Trump\u2019s recent executive orders.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>March 17, 2025 Update. On March 14, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted a stay of the preliminary injunction pending the government\u2019s appeal. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":9768,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[3034,143,7418,3971,554,600,2684,1719,1412,2352,304,7417,963],"class_list":["post-9767","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-blocking","tag-court","tag-deirelated","tag-executive","tag-federal","tag-injunction","tag-issues","tag-key","tag-orders","tag-preliminary","tag-president","tag-provisions","tag-trumps"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9767","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9767"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9767\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9768"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9767"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9767"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9767"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}