President Trump’s executive orders have spurred a slew of litigation, including a lawsuit challenging two orders that focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices in the federal government and federally funded programs. These executive orders call for immediate action, including potentially terminating certain federal contracts. However, on February 21, 2025, a federal judge in Maryland blocked substantial portions of these orders. The court’s ruling will have an immediate, albeit potentially temporary, effect.
Background
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued executive order No. 14151, titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.” The order calls for eliminating all DEI policies, programs, and positions within the federal government and terminating all “equity-related grants and contracts.”
The following day, on January 21, 2025, executive order 14173, titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” was issued. This order requires all contracts and grant awards to include a certification stating that “compliance in all respects with all applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws is material to the government’s payment decisions.” It also directs federal agencies to identify potential targets for “civil compliance investigations” in the private and higher education sectors.
In response, government agencies and private businesses have taken swift action. For example, the Department of Defense issued a memo on January 31, 2025, titled, “Identity Months Dead at DoD,” stating that the department would no longer host “events related to cultural awareness months.” Many large corporations have also taken action in response to the executive orders, including by revising their DEI initiatives to focus on talent management and engagement.
The Legal Challenge
On February 3, 2025, higher education groups and the city of Baltimore filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, arguing that the executive orders are unconstitutional and exceed presidential authority. The plaintiffs argue that the DEI order is “void for vagueness” because it fails to define key terms or explain when adverse actions for compliance violations will occur. They also contend that the order violates the spending clause by directing the termination of funding for DEI programs. Regarding the merit-based opportunity order, the plaintiffs argue that it restricts speech based on content and viewpoint and fails to provide clear guidance on which DEI programs would be compliant.
After filing the lawsuit, the plaintiffs quickly followed with a motion for a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction, requesting that the court temporarily block enforcement of parts of the executive orders while it decides the merits of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit.
The Injunction
In considering the plaintiffs’ motion, the court found a likelihood of success on the merits of the lawsuit, agreeing that the executive orders are unconstitutionally vague, lack clear definitions, and potentially discriminate against certain viewpoints in violation of the First Amendment. The court also found that the plaintiffs would likely suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction.
As a result, the court entered an order preventing the government from terminating federal contracts and grants, requiring contractors to certify compliance with anti-discrimination laws, and commencing civil compliance investigations while the injunction remains in place. The injunction applies to federal contractors, grantees, and private sector entities similarly situated to the plaintiffs.
However, the injunction does not restrict the attorney general from identifying “[a] plan of specific steps or measures to deter DEI programs or principles ... that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences,” as required by the merit-based opportunity order. Further, it will not stop plaintiffs or the government from filing claims challenging DEI practices under existing anti-discrimination laws.
Key Takeaway
While the court’s order means that federal agencies will not immediately conduct civil compliance investigations, private businesses and institutions of higher education should still remain mindful that their public-facing DEI communications and disclosures may still be scrutinized even while the injunction is in place.
