A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction against executive orders from President Donald Trump aimed at ending government support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The decision, delivered Friday by U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore, prevents the administration from terminating or altering federal contracts deemed equity-related.
Abelson found that the executive orders likely violate the Constitution, particularly regarding free speech rights. Trump signed the first order on his first day in office, directing federal agencies to terminate all “equity-related” grants and contracts. A follow-up order required federal contractors to certify they do not promote DEI initiatives.
The plaintiffs, which include the city of Baltimore and several higher education groups, filed a lawsuit earlier this month, arguing that the orders are unconstitutional and overstep presidential authority. They claimed the directives create a chilling effect on free speech. Attorney Aleshadye Getachew, representing the plaintiffs, said the orders amount to “an overcorrection” that stifles DEI advocacy.
Government attorneys defended the orders, arguing they target only DEI programs that violate federal civil rights laws and that the administration has the right to align federal spending with the president’s priorities. Justice Department attorney Pardis Gheibi stated, “The government doesn’t have the obligation to subsidize plaintiffs’ exercise of speech.”
Judge Abelson, however, sided with the plaintiffs, stating that the orders discourage businesses, organizations, and public entities from openly supporting DEI. “The harm arises from the issuance of it as a public, vague, threatening executive order,” Abelson said during the hearing.
While the ruling allows the attorney general to investigate and report on DEI practices, it blocks enforcement of the orders. Abelson’s written opinion highlighted the orders’ vagueness, leaving federal contractors and grant recipients uncertain about compliance. He illustrated the confusion with a scenario where a school using federal funds to teach about Jim Crow laws or a city repairing potholes in low-income neighborhoods might be deemed “equity-related.”
Efforts to promote diversity have faced growing opposition from Republicans, who argue that DEI programs undermine merit-based opportunities. Supporters, however, assert that these initiatives address systemic inequities and serve increasingly diverse populations. Although DEI programs have roots in the 1960s, their expansion accelerated in 2020 amid calls for racial justice.
The plaintiffs warned that abruptly ending DEI programs would cause widespread harm, with Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott emphasizing the impact on vulnerable residents. The lawsuit includes the Baltimore City Council, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, and the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United.
“This case is about ensuring that ordinary citizens are not silenced,” the plaintiffs stated. “The president’s power is not limitless, and he cannot suppress viewpoints he disagrees with.”
