In Washington, D.C., a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction on Friday, significantly blocking executive orders from President Donald Trump that aimed to eliminate government backing for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson, based in Baltimore, intervened to prevent the Trump administration from altering or terminating federal contracts deemed related to equity.
Judge Abelson identified potential constitutional violations within these orders, including infringements on free speech rights. President Trump had enacted a directive shortly after assuming office that instructed federal agencies to cease all equity-related grants or contracts. Another subsequent directive required federal contractors to confirm they do not promote DEI initiatives.
The Trump administration did not issue an immediate response. The plaintiffs, which include the city of Baltimore and groups in higher education, filed a lawsuit earlier, challenging the constitutionality of Trump’s orders and alleging an overreach of presidential power. They also contend that the measures stifle free speech.
Aleshadye Getachew, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, argued that the administration’s actions represent an excessive withdrawal from DEI statements. The administration, however, contended that it was only targeting DEI programs violating federal civil rights laws, asserting federal spending should align with presidential priorities. According to Justice Department attorney Pardis Gheibi, the government is not obliged to fund what it interprets as the plaintiffs’ expression of views.
Judge Abelson, appointed by President Joe Biden, sided with the plaintiffs, ruling that the executive orders deter entities from supporting DEI openly. Abelson emphasized that the orders’ vague language poses a public threat. His ruling, while allowing the attorney general to probe DEI practices and prepare a report, prohibits any enforcement action.
In the written opinion, Abelson criticized the executive orders’ vagueness, which provides federal contractors and grant recipients little clarity on compliance requirements. The opinion included a hypothetical example questioning if teaching about Jim Crow laws or focusing on infrastructure in low-income neighborhoods might be classified as equity-related under the orders.
For years, Republican figures have challenged DEI initiatives, arguing they compromise merit-based hiring and promotion. In contrast, advocates maintain such programs fulfill the needs of diverse populations and address systemic racism’s legacy. Initiatives aimed at creating equitable environments emerged primarily in response to social justice movements in 2020, although their roots trace back to the 1960s.
The plaintiffs, including city officials from Baltimore and several national academic and professional organizations, assert that Trump’s orders potentially cause widespread disruption due to their ambiguity. Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, who supports enhancing opportunities for marginalized communities, has been subject to derogatory remarks online regarding his stance on DEI.
Legal representatives of the plaintiffs argue that Trump’s initiatives represent an overreach attempting to suppress differing perspectives. They contend that the president overestimates his authority in this realm, noting that his powers are not without limits.
