Federal Court Refuses to Lift Preliminary Injunction Blocking DEI Executive Orders, While EEOC, USDOE, and State AGs Address DEI in Education

On March 3, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland extended its injunction indefinitely and denied the government’s motion to stay the preliminary injunction placed on key provisions of Executive Orders 14151 and 14173 while litigation continues on appeal. The court’s initial injunction, instituted on February 21 and discussed in more detail in our February 24 Legal Alert, blocks provisions requiring federal contractors and grantees to certify that they do not engage in DEI programs, as well as provisions authorizing the U.S. Attorney General to take enforcement action against “illegal” DEI initiatives. With the court’s latest ruling, those restrictions remain in place pending appeal.

In its March 3, 2025, opinion, the court reaffirmed its conclusion that the challenged provisions of the DEI Executive Orders likely violate the First and Fifth Amendments, as they restrict speech, impose vague compliance requirements, and create the risk of arbitrary enforcement. The government argued that enforcement of the DEI Executive Orders should proceed immediately in order to eliminate discriminatory practices, but the court ruled that enforcing the DEI Executive Orders would cause irreparable harm by unlawfully suppressing speech and due process rights. The court also rejected the government’s request to limit the injunction only to the plaintiffs, emphasizing that the blocked provisions have nationwide impact and affect many similarly situated entities.

While the litigation is ongoing and the government’s appeal could lead to further developments, the ruling highlights the constitutional vulnerabilities of the DEI Executive Orders and signals that broad government efforts to restrict DEI initiatives may not withstand legal scrutiny.

DEI and Anti-Semitism in Education

Despite the court order enjoining many of the Trump administration’s anti-DEI enforcement activities, last week the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) announced the launch of an “End DEI” portal for parents, students, teachers, and the public to report alleged DEI-based discrimination based on race or sex in publicly-funded K-12 schools. The portal is intended to allow parents to report concerning DEI practices, such as “critical race theory, rogue sex education, and other so-called divisive ideologies.” 

The court’s ruling and USDOE efforts coincide with broader legal pushback from some state attorneys general. In response to the USDOE’s February 14, 2025, Dear Colleague Letter, which claimed that schools embrace “pervasive and repugnant race-based preferences” and threatened to withhold federal funding (i.e. student aid) for maintaining DEI programs, attorneys general from Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York—joined by 12 other states and the District of Columbia—issued Joint Guidance challenging the federal agency’s stance. The AGs argue that the USDOE misinterprets and misapplies Supreme Court precedent (Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2003)), asserting that educational institutions remain legally permitted—and in some cases required—to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion under civil rights laws. These dueling legal interpretations reflect a legal fight likely to play out in the courts.

The National Education Association and its NH-based state affiliate filed a lawsuit in New Hampshire federal court on March 5, challenging the constitutionality of the Dear Colleague Letter. Three teacher preparation program providers also filed in Maryland federal court challenging the Trump administration’s cancellation of educational training grants because they were suspected of advancing divisive DEI principles. The suit asserts that, if the Trump administration wants to establish a change in the DOE’s priorities, it must follow proper rulemaking processes, including a notice and comment period, among other constitutional infirmities. Additionally, eight state AGs (California, Massachusetts, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin) filed suit in Massachusetts federal court asserting the cancelation of education training grants was both arbitrary and capricious and unauthorized under the terms of the federal awards.

Finally, in a March 5, 2025, press release, EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas affirmed the Agency’s commitment to holding universities and colleges accountable "for protecting workers from religious bias and harassment.” Lucas accused universities of fostering hostile work environments for Jewish employees and announced the EEOC’s partnership with the Department of Justice’s newly formed Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, which is already investigating at least one major public university for potential Title VII violations.

Conclusion