The legal fight against federal executive orders restricting DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility) efforts advanced this month as advocacy groups, state attorneys general, and major employers filed briefs backing the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE) and its co-plaintiffs.
On May 8, Democracy Forward, representing NADOHE, submitted a legal brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, defending a prior district court injunction that temporarily blocked the controversial orders. That injunction was stayed on March 14, pending the outcome of the federal government’s appeal.
Now, with the appellate case moving forward, support is growing on multiple fronts.
One amicus curiae brief—filed by attorneys general from 18 states—argues that DEI initiatives are not only lawful but essential to fulfilling federal antidiscrimination mandates. The attorneys general emphasize that DEI policies “are well-recognized, lawful methods of achieving critical social and economic benefits,” including driving innovation, supporting competitiveness in a global economy, and promoting educational equity. They also warn that the executive orders’ “vague and unclear directives” are harming state governments and private organizations alike by threatening the loss of federal funding and undermining public services.
A second brief, filed jointly by the ACLU of Maryland, Public Justice Center, and Union of Concerned Scientists, criticizes the orders for portraying all diversity efforts as unlawful. The brief states that the orders serve as “a pretext needed to crack down on activity and expression that advance equity,” regardless of legality. It cites “unprecedented terminations of federally-funded science” merely for including terms like “equity” or “women,” and claims the EOs have coerced programming changes in schools and nonprofits, chilling lawful expression.
A third brief came from a coalition of private employers and industry groups across sectors such as hospitality, energy, and finance. These organizations argue that DEI work is critical to maintaining inclusive workplaces and managing litigation risk. The brief contends that there is “no conflict between DEI and ‘merit,’” and that the executive orders violate both the First Amendment and due process protections.
Notably, no amicus briefs have been filed in support of the government’s position.
These filings underscore the broad-based concern that the executive orders could have sweeping consequences beyond the lawsuit’s named plaintiffs. Each brief calls on the Fourth Circuit to reinstate the district court’s injunction and block enforcement of the orders.
