Efforts by the Trump administration to eliminate DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) programming from public institutions are advancing on two fronts — one through sweeping executive orders and the other via a U.S. Department of Education (ED) directive tied to critical funding. Both are facing escalating legal resistance and have placed public schools, colleges, and universities in an uncertain legal landscape, potentially jeopardizing billions in federal support.
At the heart of the conflict is a legal challenge against the Trump administration led by the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE), the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the City of Baltimore, and Restaurant Opportunities Centers United. The lawsuit targets two executive orders signed by Trump in January 2025, which seek to curtail or eliminate all DEI initiatives in the public and private sectors.
The plaintiffs argue that the orders violate the First and Fifth Amendments by penalizing constitutionally protected speech and introducing vague enforcement measures.
“In the United States, there is no king,” the lawsuit reads. “The President can exercise only those powers the Constitution grants to the executive, and only in ways that do not violate the rights the Constitution grants to the American people. In his crusade to erase diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility from our country, President Trump cannot usurp Congress’s exclusive power of the purse, nor can he silence those who disagree with him by threatening them with the loss of federal funds and other enforcement actions.”
Court Issues Injunction, Then a Stay
On Feb. 21, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking key provisions of the orders. Specifically, it halted efforts to terminate equity-related grants and contracts, impose DEI-related certifications in federal contracting, and investigate organizations for participating in DEI work.
“This ruling reaffirms what we have long known—efforts to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion have no place in a just and democratic society,” Paulette Granberry Russell, NADOHE president and CEO, wrote in an open letter denouncing the policies. “NADOHE remains steadfast in our commitment to advocate for policies and protections that uphold the fundamental values of equity and access for all.”
The court held that these provisions unlawfully penalize viewpoints protected under the First Amendment and are “impermissibly vague,” adding that “ensuring equity, diversity, and inclusion has long been a goal, and at least in some contexts, arguably a requirement of federal anti-discrimination law.”
Following reports that some agencies continued enforcement efforts despite the injunction, the court expanded the scope of its ruling on March 10. It clarified that the injunction applied not only to the 11 named federal agencies but to all federal executive branch entities.
“This is a powerful win for equity, justice, and the rule of law. The Trump-Vance administration’s attempts to unlawfully dismantle diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility initiatives have been stopped in their tracks—again,” Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward—which is representing the plaintiffs alongside Asian Americans Advancing Justice— said in a statement after the injunction. “The court’s decision sends a clear message, as our complaint states: in America, there is no king. The law is on the side of progress and we will use every legal tool to protect people and communities against unlawful attacks on equity and inclusion.”
However, on March 14, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the government’s request for a stay of the injunction, allowing enforcement to continue while the appeal proceeds. Although the stay represents a setback for DEI proponents, the appellate court moved to expedite the case, citing the constitutional implications involved. Notably, in their concurring opinions, two of the three judges on the panel expressed strong support for DEI principles.
“People of good faith who work to promote [DEI] deserve praise, not opprobrium,” Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory Diaz wrote in the court’s ruling. “[Inclusive policies] create an environment and culture where everyone is respected and valued. What could be more American than that?”
Judge Pamela Harris also stressed that the government’s interpretation of the executive orders could “raise serious First Amendment and Due Process concerns,” warning against broad enforcement that goes beyond narrow applications.
For now, the legal fight continues.
“The elimination of DEI programs and initiatives at public academic institutions are a threat to the democratic purposes of higher education as a public good,” AAUP President Todd Wolfson, wrote in a statement announcing the lawsuit. “The AAUP is proud to stand up and defend our campuses and communities from this vague and destructive executive order.”
Education Department Demands and Push Back
As the legal battle unfolds in the courts, ED has taken additional steps to curtail DEI at the K-12 and postsecondary levels. In an April 3 letter to school leaders, ED warned that any use of DEI programs that could be interpreted as privileging one race over another would be considered a violation of civil rights law. Public institutions—including colleges and universities—must now sign a certification letter affirming their compliance.
While Title I primarily supports K-12 schools serving low-income students, the move sets a precedent that could affect federal funding for higher education, particularly for institutions with pre-college access programs, teacher education pipelines, or federal research grants with DEI components.
Critics argue the directive from ED introduces new federal requirements without going through established rule-making procedures. States like Minnesota and Colorado have refused to comply, citing legal concerns and a lack of clarity regarding what constitutes a civil rights violation. The Minnesota Department of Education referenced recent court rulings—such as Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump—that found the federal government’s definitions of “illegal DEI” to be unconstitutionally vague.
For colleges and universities, the risk is twofold. Institutions must navigate the conflicting demands of federal enforcement actions and judicial rulings while preserving access to essential funding and protecting long standing DEI practices. Many of these initiatives—such as inclusive hiring processes, cultural competency training, and student support programs—could now be interpreted as violations depending on how federal officials choose to define discrimination.
Resistance is mounting, however. In Minnesota, the state education department sent a letter rejecting the certification request, citing procedural and legal flaws. “There is no federal law prohibiting DEI,” the letter states. “Imposing such a condition without rule-making violates federal agency protocol.”
Colorado Commissioner of Education Susana Córdova echoed that sentiment, telling the state board of education, “I am not signing that. I’m not asking our districts to sign that.” Córdova pointed out that districts already certify compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and that ED’s new demand lacks the necessary review under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
DEI at a Crossroads
While public schools face immediate funding threats, colleges and universities are grappling with a broader climate of uncertainty. Institutions that receive federal research grants or participate in government partnerships are unsure whether long standing programs—often tied to Title VI compliance or workforce diversity efforts—will trigger investigations or funding cuts.
In the meantime, education leaders across sectors are left balancing legal risk, federal compliance demands, and their own commitments to inclusive learning environments. With billions in funding and the future of civil rights enforcement at stake, the outcome of these disputes will shape the educational landscape for years to come.
