Trump administration can, for now, enforce orders targeting DEI, appeals court says
A federal appeals court said Friday the Trump administration can, for now, enforce two executive orders that target diversity, equity and inclusion efforts within the federal government. (Image from Shutterstock)
A federal appeals court said Friday the Trump administration can, for now, enforce two executive orders that target diversity, equity and inclusion efforts within the federal government.
In its March 14 order, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Virginia, lifted a lower court’s injunction that paused the policies last month. One of them directs federal agencies to end DEI programs, while the other requires recipients of federal grants and contracts to certify that they do not promote DEI.
4th Circuit Chief Judge Albert Diaz wrote that the Trump administration met its burden of justifying a stay of the injunction while litigation challenging the executive orders continues. However, while Diaz said he would “reserve judgment” on how the administration enforces the orders, he added that they “may well implicate cognizable First [Amendment] and Fifth Amendment concerns.”
The Associated Press, the New York Times and Politico have coverage.
The mayor and city council of Baltimore and three national associations sued the Trump administration over the executive orders in February, arguing that they are unconstitutional. In his ruling halting the orders, U.S. District Judge Adam B. Abelson of the District of Maryland said they were likely to lead to “arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”
Judge Pamela Harris, who concurred with Diaz but wrote a separate opinion, said, “This is a difficult case that will benefit from more sustained attention than we can give it in the present posture.” She noted the Trump administration’s argument that President Donald Trump is only targeting DEI programs that violate existing federal anti-discrimination laws.
“As the government explains, the challenged executive orders, on their face, are of distinctly limited scope,” Harris wrote. “The executive orders do not purport to establish the illegality of all efforts to advance diversity, equity or inclusion, and they should not be so understood.”
Harris also said her vote came “with a caveat.”
“What the orders say on their face and how they are enforced are two different things,” she said. “Agency enforcement actions that go beyond the orders’ narrow scope may well raise serious First Amendment and due process concerns, for the reasons cogently explained by the district court.”
In his opinion, Diaz said he was compelled to address the “monster in America’s closet—diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.” He contended that these initiatives are “American” at their core.
“Despite the vitriol now being heaped on DEI, people of good faith who work to promote diversity, equity and inclusion deserve praise, not opprobrium,” Diaz wrote. “For when this country embraces true diversity, it acknowledges and respects the social identity of its people. When it fosters true equity, it opens opportunities and ensures a level playing field for all. And when its policies are truly inclusive, it creates an environment and culture where everyone is respected and valued.”
Judge Allison Jones Rushing, who also wrote a separate concurring opinion, said the Trump administration was likely to succeed in demonstrating that the executive orders do not violate the Constitution. She said “any individual judge’s view on whether certain executive action is good policy” is irrelevant to their duties.
“A judge’s opinion that DEI programs ‘deserve praise, not opprobrium’ should play absolutely no part in deciding this case,” Rushing said.
Diaz was appointed by former President Barack Obama, and Harris was appointed by former President Joe Biden. Rushing was appointed by Trump.
See also:
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
