Trump DEI Orders Mostly Blocked in Diversity Officers Suit (1)

A federal judge in Baltimore preliminarily halted the Trump administration from enforcing portions of the president’s sweeping executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs that it considers illegal and discriminatory.

Judge Adam Abelson of the US District Court for the District of Maryland on Friday granted the challengers’ request for a preliminary injunction in part, finding several provisions to be unconstitutionally vague. Others, he said, violate free speech rights.

Abelson, a Biden appointee, focused on mandates for agencies to terminate “equity-related” grants or contracts; for contractors or grantees to certify they aren’t “promoting DEI;" and for the attorney general to “encourage” the private sector to end DEI programs under threat of enforcement.

The ruling is a win for groups representing college diversity officers, university professors, and restaurant workers, along with city officials from Baltimore. They initially filed the challenge Feb. 3.

Abelson, however, didn’t block the attorney general from preparing reports or pursuing investigations related to the anti-DEI directives, which were among the first batch of Trump’s executive orders signed Jan. 20 and 21.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi has called on Justice Department staff to develop enforcement plans, potentially including criminal investigations.

Federal agencies had already begun freezing or canceling federal grants and contracts to comply with Trump’s anti-DEI policies, putting people’s jobs in “imminent danger” and forcing individuals and institutions to censor their speech to avoid running afoul of the federal orders, the plaintiffs said in a Feb. 13 brief.

Likely Unconstitutional

The challengers showed they’re likely to prove that the contract termination and enforcement threat provisions are “unconstitutionally vague on their face,” Abelson wrote.

Trump’s orders don’t define terms such as “DEI” or “equity-related,” he said. Nor do they identify what programs or policies would be considered “illegal,” he added.

Contractors and their employees—who make up about 20% of the US workforce—are left with “no idea whether the administration will deem their contracts or grants, or work they are doing, or speech they are engaged in, to be ‘equity-related,’” Abelson said.

Abelson further found that the orders’ enforcement and certification provisions are unlawful “content-based and viewpoint-discriminatory restrictions on protected speech.”

Asian Americans Advancing Justice and Democracy Forward represent the plaintiffs: 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.

The Justice Department represents the government.

The case is Nat’l Assoc. of Diversity Officers in Higher Ed. v. Trump, D. Md., No. 1:25-cv-00333, 2/21/25.