Feb 22, 2025 Story by: Editor
A federal judge on Friday issued a significant ruling blocking President Donald Trump’s executive orders aimed at eliminating government support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson, based in Baltimore, granted a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from terminating or altering federal contracts deemed equity-related.
Abelson determined that the executive orders likely violate constitutional rights, including free speech protections.
On his first day in office, Trump signed an order directing federal agencies to terminate all grants and contracts associated with equity programs. A subsequent order required federal contractors to certify that they do not promote DEI initiatives.
The White House has yet to respond to requests for comment.
The lawsuit against the Trump administration was filed earlier this month by the city of Baltimore and several higher education organizations. The plaintiffs argue that the executive orders are unconstitutional and represent an overreach of presidential authority. They also contend that the directives suppress free speech.
The Trump administration maintains that the orders only target DEI programs that allegedly violate federal civil rights laws. “What’s happening is an overcorrection and pulling back on DEI statements,” said attorney Aleshadye Getachew during a nearly three-hour hearing on Wednesday.
Abelson, appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden, sided with the plaintiffs, stating that the executive orders deter businesses, organizations, and public entities from openly supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion.
“The harm arises from the issuance of it as a public, vague, threatening executive order,” he said during the hearing.
While Abelson’s ruling allows the attorney general to investigate and compile a report on DEI practices, it blocks enforcement of the executive orders.
For years, Republican lawmakers have opposed DEI initiatives, arguing they undermine merit-based hiring, promotions, and educational opportunities for white individuals. In contrast, advocates believe such programs help institutions address systemic racism while serving diverse populations.
DEI efforts, originally traced back to the 1960s, expanded significantly in 2020 amid heightened calls for racial justice. These programs aim to create equitable environments in workplaces and educational institutions, particularly for historically marginalized communities.
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs argue that abruptly ending these programs will have widespread negative consequences, exacerbated by the ambiguous wording of Trump’s executive orders.
“Ordinary citizens bear the brunt,” they wrote in their complaint. “Plaintiffs and their members receive federal funds to support educators, academics, students, workers, and communities across the country. As federal agencies make arbitrary decisions about whether grants are ‘equity-related,’ Plaintiffs are left in limbo.”
The plaintiffs include the city of Baltimore, which relies on federal funding for public safety, housing, environmental programs, and infrastructure projects.
Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, who secured reelection last year, has been a vocal proponent of expanding opportunities for the city’s most vulnerable residents, particularly communities of color. Scott, who faced racist online attacks last year, was labeled a “DEI mayor” by critics. In response, he coined the phrase “Definitely Earned It” to celebrate the achievements of Black historical figures.
In addition to Scott 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 advocates for restaurant workers nationwide.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that their clients are already experiencing the negative impact of Trump’s orders, which they say infringe upon congressional powers and suppress opposing viewpoints.
“But the President simply does not wield that power,” they wrote in the complaint. “And contrary to his suggestions otherwise, his power is not limitless.”
Source: KOAT
