President Donald Trump speaks with reporters in the Oval Office of the White House while signing executive orders on January 23, 2025, in Washington.
Ben Curtis/AP
hide caption

toggle caption

Ben Curtis/AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge issued significant rulings on Friday, imposing restrictions on President Donald Trump’s sweeping executive orders aimed at eliminating government support for initiatives focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore granted an initial injunction, preventing the Trump administration from canceling or modifying federal contracts that are deemed equity-related.

Judge Abelson identified potential constitutional infringements within the executive orders, including issues surrounding free speech rights.

On his first day in office, Trump issued an order mandating federal agencies to eliminate all grants and contracts associated with “equity-related” activities, followed by another directive requiring federal contractors to confirm they do not engage in DEI promotions.

The White House has yet to respond to requests for comments regarding the ruling made on Friday evening.

Among the plaintiffs in the lawsuit — which includes the city of Baltimore and several higher education organizations — claims that the executive orders represent unconstitutional overreach and infringe upon First Amendment rights.

“This action is an overreaction that stifles DEI initiatives,” said attorney Aleshadye Getachew during a nearly three-hour court hearing on Wednesday.

The Trump administration asserts that the executive orders are intended to target DEI programs that are in violation of federal civil rights laws. Government attorneys contend the need for federal spending to reflect the administration’s agenda.

“The government is not required to subsidize the plaintiffs’ free speech,” noted Justice Department attorney Pardis Gheibi.

Judge Abelson, who was appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden, concurred with the plaintiffs, highlighting that the executive orders inhibit businesses and organizations from openly endorsing diversity, equity, and inclusion.

“The harm stemmed from issuing a vague and public executive order,” he stated during the hearing.

The ruling permits the attorney general to investigate DEI practices as per one of the executive orders, but bars enforcement of the orders.

In his written decision, Abelson expressed concerns about the orders being excessively ambiguous, leaving federal contractors and grant recipients without a clear understanding of compliance requirements.

He illustrated hypothetical cases, questioning if an elementary school receiving federal funds for technology utilized the funds for educational purposes related to historical injustices, would that qualify as “equity-related”?

Efforts to enhance diversity have faced criticism from conservatives who argue such measures undermine merit-based opportunities. Conversely, advocates argue that these programs are crucial for addressing the needs of diverse populations and rectifying historical racial biases.

The goal of DEI initiatives is to create inclusive environments in workplaces and educational institutions that benefit historically underrepresented communities. Although DEI efforts began in the 1960s, they gained momentum in 2020 amid demands for racial equality.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers asserted that Trump’s abrupt termination of these initiatives would result in significant harm, particularly due to the vague nature of the executive orders.

“The ordinary citizen will suffer the most,” they argued. “Plaintiffs and their affiliates rely on federal funding to support various educational and community initiatives. As agencies make discretionary calls on what constitutes ‘equity-related,’ the plaintiffs are left in an uncertain situation.”

The city of Baltimore, receiving federal assistance for numerous services, is among the plaintiffs as detailed in the filings.

Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, who recently secured reelection, has championed initiatives to enhance opportunities for the city’s most disadvantaged residents, particularly people of color. Following his victory, he faced racist commentary online, with some labeling him the “DEI mayor,” and he has recently coined the term “Definitely Earned It” to celebrate the contributions of Black individuals throughout history.

In addition to Mayor Scott and the Baltimore City Council, the plaintiffs encompass several organizations such as the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, and the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, which represents restaurant employees nationwide.

The plaintiffs’ legal representatives contend that these groups are already experiencing the negative repercussions of the executive orders, which they argue represent an overstep of presidential authority and seek to silence dissenting viewpoints.

“The President simply does not possess that level of authority,” they emphasized in their complaint. “His powers are not infinite, contrary to his assertions.”