Federal Court Preliminarily Blocks Key Parts of President Trump’s Orders Restricting DEI at Private Employers

Quick Hits

• A federal court in Maryland preliminarily blocked the Trump administration from enforcing executive orders that seek to eliminate DEI programs and initiatives in the federal government and private sector.
• The court found the executive orders are likely unconstitutionally vague, lack clear definitions, and potentially discriminate against certain viewpoints in violations of the First Amendment.
• The ruling provides some temporary relief for federal contractors and other private employers that have faced concerns they will be a target of federal regulators over programs that may be classified as “illegal” DEI.

On February 21, 2025, U.S. District Judge Adam B. Abelson granted a preliminary injunction, blocking three key provisions of two EOs issued by President Donald Trump in his first days in office: (1) a provision that required federal agencies to terminate “equity-related grants or contracts,” (2) a provision that required federal contractors and subcontractors to certify for purposes of False Claims Act (FCA) liability that they do not operate unlawful DEI programs, and (3) a provision directing the attorney general to enforce civil rights laws against DEI programs in the private sector.

A coalition of DEI advocates—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—filed the lawsuit on February 3, 2025, alleging that the Trump EOs restricting DEI or diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility were vague and unconstitutional.

Judge Abelson found that the EOs fail to “define any of the operative terms” such as “equity-related” and “illegal DEI,” leaving companies without clear guidance on what types of programs or policies are being restricted. The judge said the EOs further seek to deter certain principles and speech in clear viewpoint discrimination that is likely to violate the First Amendment.

The ruling in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland is a major win for organizations promoting DEI and diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) and provides some temporary relief for federal contractors and subcontractors and other private employers that have faced concerns they will be targeted by federal regulators over programs that could arguably be classified as “illegal” DEI.

The ruling also comes just days after a two groups of civil rights organizations filed similar challenges U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the two DEI executive orders and another that rejected gender identity. 

Executive Orders

The DEI advocates’ suit targeted EO 14151, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” which was issued on January 20, 2025, President Trump’s first day in office. The order directed federal agencies to “within sixty days of this order … terminate, to the maximum extent allowed by law, all … ‘equity-related’ grants or contracts.”

EO 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” issued on January 21, 2025, directed agencies to “include in every contract or grant award: A term requiring the contractual counterparty or grant recipient to agree that its compliance in all respects with all applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws is material to the government’s payment decisions for purposes” of the FCA. The provision has raised concerns for companies doing business with the federal government over potential liability under the FCA, which makes it illegal to defraud the government and allows whistleblowers to bring claims.

Further, EO 14173 directs the attorney general to develop a plan for “enforcing Federal civil-rights laws and taking other appropriate measures to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI.” The order states the plan should “identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, State and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars.”

Court’s Findings and Injunction

The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that these provisions were unconstitutionally vague and violated the First Amendment. The court issued a preliminary injunction against the following provisions:

1. Termination Provision

The court found that the term “equity-related” in EO 14151 is likely vague and could lead to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. The court found that the lack of clear definitions leaves federal contractors and grantees uncertain about what activities are prohibited, which could have a chilling effect on speech and activities related to DEI.

Judge Abelson stated that “individuals and organizations have no reasonable way to know what, if anything, they can do to bring their grants into compliance such that they are not considered ‘equity-related.’”

2. Certification Provision

The court determined that this provision imposed a content-based restriction on speech, requiring contractors and grantees to certify compliance with undefined federal anti-discrimination laws. This provision was found to leverage federal funding to regulate speech outside the scope of the funded programs, violating the First Amendment.

Judge Abelson found that the language of the provision “makes clear that the sole purpose of the provision, regardless of the individualized implementation by executive agencies, is for federal contractors and grantees to confirm under threat of perjury and False Claims Act liability that they do not operate any programs promoting DEI that the government might contend violate federal anti-discrimination laws. This is precisely a ‘condition[] that seek[s] to leverage funding to regulate speech outside the contours of the program itself.’”

3. Enforcement Threat Provision

The court concluded that it is likely to be found that this provision in EO 14173 is, on its face, an unlawful viewpoint-based restriction on speech. The provision targets DEI programs in private companies without clear definitions and the threat of enforcement is likely to have a chilling effect on speech related to DEI. Judge Abelson stated that it is clear the Trump administration through the EO “that viewpoints and speech considered to be in favor of or supportive of DEI or DEIA are viewpoints the government wishes to punish and, apparently, attempt to extinguish.”

Scope of the Injunction

The preliminary injunction applies not only to the plaintiffs in the case but also to similarly situated federal contractors, grantees, and private sector entities. The court emphasized the need to maintain the status quo while the litigation proceeds and prevent the enforcement of the challenged provisions.

Next Steps

This preliminary injunction represents a significant legal victory for proponents of DEI programs and principles. The court’s decision focused on the lack of clarity of the language used in the EOs and the likelihood that this could chill the free speech of companies and organizations. However, the preliminary injunction ruling will likely be appealed by the Trump administration, and the issues raise important constitutional questions that could land it before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Ogletree Deakins will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Employment Law, Governmental Affairs, and OFCCP Compliance, Government Contracting, and Reporting blogs.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts