A Maryland federal court judge issued a temporary injunction late Friday, February 21, 2025, curtailing President Trump’s executive orders aimed at diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, including Executive Order 14151 titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing” and Executive Order 14173 titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” We previously summarized these orders in two recent blog posts—President Trump’s First-Day Orders Impacting Employers and President Trump Order Seeks to End Discriminatory DEI Programs and Mandates, Affecting Federal Contractors, Private Sector, and Higher Education. In a 63-page written opinion, the Maryland federal judge determined that certain challenged portions of these Executive Orders likely violated the U.S. Constitution and granted a temporary injunction on their enforcement. The judge’s order is nationwide in scope, including for entities not parties to the pending lawsuit; the judge noted the “nationwide” effect was partially inherent because some of the plaintiffs are nationwide organizations in any case. The judge’s opinion is available here.
Executive Order 14151, among other things, directed federal agencies to terminate all “equity-related” grants or contracts to the maximum extent allowed by law. Plaintiffs in the Maryland lawsuit argued that the phrase “equity-related” is too vague.
Executive Order 14173, among other things, required any federal contracts or grants to include the recipients of federal funds to agree to compliance with all federal antidiscrimination laws and certify that the recipient does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate federal antidiscrimination laws. This certification requirement was challenged by plaintiffs in the Maryland lawsuit as impermissibly infringing Freedom of Speech, and also a violation of the Separation of Powers among the three branches of government. This argument drew particular attention in the pending court action. Executive Order 14173 also required various federal agency heads to compile and submit a report with recommendations for enforcing federal civil rights laws to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences including DEI programs and to “deter” such programs and principles including potentially using the False Claims Act to enforce these requirements. This enforcement threat also was challenged in the Maryland lawsuit as impermissibly vague and a violation of the Freedom of Speech.
The Maryland federal court judge noted that phrases used in the Executive Orders, such as “equity-related” and “illegal DEI” and “illegal discrimination” were not defined in the Orders. This vagueness, the judge stated, left affected parties unsure what contracts or grants were affected, or what private parties should consider to be “illegal DEI” programs, in likely violation of the Fifth Amendment’s due process requirements. The challenged provisions also appeared to infringe the plaintiffs’ First Amendment Free Speech rights based on their content, which is subject to the strictest scrutiny in federal courts.
The Maryland judge’s order prohibits the federal government defendants from relying on Executive Order 14151 to pause, freeze, impede, block, or cancel existing grant awards, contracts, or obligations, or changing the terms of such obligations, until further ordered. The judge also prohibited the federal government defendants from requiring any contractor or grant recipient from being required to “certify” anything as required by Executive Order 14173. The judge also prohibits the federal government defendants from bringing any False Claims Act or other enforcement action relating to the certification requirement in Executive Order 14173.
The motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was brought by a group of plaintiffs including the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland. These plaintiffs did not challenge the Executive Orders in their entirety, but instead focused on some of the vague language, as well as the certification and enforcement threat provisions. Notably, the plaintiffs did not challenge the directive to remove DEI principles from federal contracting and acquisition procedures.
The case will proceed in the federal court until a final order is issued either lifting the temporary injunction or granting a permanent injunction. The Trump Administration could also choose to rescind and re-issue revised executive orders to address the concerns raised in the judge’s opinion. There is undoubtedly more to come on these issues and our team will continue to closely monitor new developments.
The legal issues impacting this topic are and will continue to be ever-changing (Employment Law in Motion!), and since publication of this blog post, new or additional information not referenced in this blog post may be available.
This article is provided for informational purposes only—it does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the firm and the reader. Readers should consult legal counsel before taking action relating to the subject matter of this article.
