BREAKING: Federal judge blocks Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders
by Curated February 21, 2025 · Gay News / Gay Pride / Gay Rights / The Advocate
Author: Christopher Wiggins
A federal judge in Maryland has issued a preliminary injunction blocking key provisions of President Donald Trump’s recent executive orders to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, ruling that they likely violate constitutional protections.
Keep up with the latest in LGBTQ+ news and politics. Sign up for The Advocate’s email newsletter.
On Friday evening, U.S. District Judge Adam B. Abelson found that the orders, which direct federal agencies to terminate equity-related grants and contracts and require contractors to certify compliance with anti-discrimination laws, impose vague and potentially unlawful restrictions on federally funded programs.
Related: Trump’s Project 2025 White House orders mass firings of DEI employees across federal government
The ruling is a significant setback for the Trump administration’s broader efforts to roll back DEI programs across the federal government, higher education, and the private sector. The lawsuit, brought by national education associations and the city of Baltimore, argues that the executive orders exceed presidential authority and infringe upon First and Fifth Amendment rights.
The court’s decision halts enforcement of provisions that sought to eliminate equity-based initiatives in federally funded projects, with Abelson writing in his ruling, ‘The challenged provisions are impermissibly vague and threaten to chill constitutionally protected speech and activity.’ noting that the administration failed to define key terms such as “equity-related” and “illegal DEI.”
The ruling highlights how these provisions create an environment of fear and uncertainty for contractors, businesses, and academic institutions that rely on federal funding. The Trump administration has defended the orders as necessary to root out what it calls “illegal discrimination,” but civil rights organizations and legal experts argue that the measures are unconstitutional overreach.
From Your Site Articles
Original Article on The Advocate
Author: Christopher Wiggins
