Federal judges issue temporary injunction against Education Department's enforcement of DEI directives
The decisions made on Thursday presented three distinct challenges to the Education Department’s initiatives aimed at implementing extensive prohibitions on diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in K-12 schools across the country.
TroibNews 
Federal judges on Thursday delivered three significant setbacks to the Education Department’s initiatives aimed at enforcing comprehensive bans on diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in K-12 schools across the country. The rulings indicated that policies from the Trump administration, or their implementation, are likely to infringe upon the law.
These decisions arose from lawsuits filed by major teacher unions and civil rights organizations in various jurisdictions. However, each ruling carries national significance, temporarily preventing the administration from executing its directive that school systems adhere to its interpretation of federal anti-discrimination law, under threat of sanctions.
While the impact of these court rulings is substantial, states and educational institutions may still encounter difficulties in interpreting how the decisions apply locally, raising questions about whether they should pause or reverse policies already enacted in response to the Trump administration's demands.
A preliminary injunction favored by the National Education Association (NEA) from Judge Landya McCafferty, a federal judge in New Hampshire appointed by former President Barack Obama, did not issue a blanket order halting the Education Department’s enforcement of its directives for schools. However, McCafferty’s ruling does affect entities that receive federal funding and employ or contract with the NEA or its members, providing her decision with widespread influence where the largest U.S. labor union operates.
In a separate ruling, Judge Stephanie Gallagher from Maryland, appointed by President Donald Trump, granted a temporary reprieve against a February 14 department letter claiming that federal law prohibits schools from factoring race into educational decisions. “This Court takes no view as to whether the policies at issue here are good or bad, prudent or foolish, fair or unfair,” Gallagher wrote in her decision. “But this Court is constitutionally required to closely scrutinize whether the government went about creating and implementing them in the manner the law requires,” she added. “The government did not.”
A third decision issued by Judge Dabney Friedrich in the District of Columbia, another Trump appointee, further impeded the department from demanding schools certify compliance with the former administration’s directives. The judge indicated that the government’s threats likely contravene the Constitution.
The Education Department did not offer a comment when approached for a response.
This month, Education Secretary Linda McMahon's agency instructed state school systems to rapidly align with a Trump-era interpretation of federal anti-discrimination law or face potential lawsuits, civil penalties, and a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding. The agency later agreed to postpone the enforcement of its orders until a scheduled hearing, as part of a temporary agreement in the New Hampshire case.
In response, the NAACP filed a lawsuit in mid-April challenging that directive and promptly secured a portion of its request for an injunction after the hearing in the District of Columbia, according to court records.
“Our fight is far from over, but today’s decision is a victory for Black and Brown students across the country, whose right to an equal education has been directly threatened by this Administration’s corrosive actions and misinterpretations of civil rights law,” said NAACP CEO Derrick Johnson in a statement.
Last month, the NEA, along with its New Hampshire affiliate and various civil rights organizations, took the Education Department to federal court to contest guidance that mandated schools eliminate their diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. The American Federation of Teachers also joined forces with the American Sociological Association and an Oregon school district in a lawsuit in partnership with the Democracy Forward legal services organization.
"Today’s ruling allows educators and schools to continue to be guided by what’s best for students, not by the threat of illegal restrictions and punishment," stated NEA President Becky Pringle regarding the New Hampshire case.
“The court agreed that this vague and clearly unconstitutional requirement is a grave attack on students, our profession, honest history, and knowledge itself,” commented American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten concerning the Maryland case.
It should be noted that the rulings issued on Thursday are not final determinations regarding the lawsuits' merits; they merely restrict the department from enforcing its policies while the cases await additional rulings. Each decision indicated that the lawsuits appear likely to succeed on at least some of their claims.
Judge McCafferty’s 82-page ruling criticized the department's "Dear Colleague" letter from February, stating that it is "unconstitutionally vague" and likely surpasses the agency's statutory authority. The letter, along with a "End DEI" federal tip line, was described by the New Hampshire judge as potentially inciting a public “witch hunt” that could instill fear among teachers, risking their reputations due to subjective assessments.
"While it may be true that a line must be drawn somewhere between the Department’s lawful prerogative to enforce anti-discrimination law and its prohibition from controlling curriculum, the Letter and its associated documents do not toe that line," McCafferty concluded.
Navid Kalantari for TROIB News
These decisions arose from lawsuits filed by major teacher unions and civil rights organizations in various jurisdictions. However, each ruling carries national significance, temporarily preventing the administration from executing its directive that school systems adhere to its interpretation of federal anti-discrimination law, under threat of sanctions.
While the impact of these court rulings is substantial, states and educational institutions may still encounter difficulties in interpreting how the decisions apply locally, raising questions about whether they should pause or reverse policies already enacted in response to the Trump administration's demands.
A preliminary injunction favored by the National Education Association (NEA) from Judge Landya McCafferty, a federal judge in New Hampshire appointed by former President Barack Obama, did not issue a blanket order halting the Education Department’s enforcement of its directives for schools. However, McCafferty’s ruling does affect entities that receive federal funding and employ or contract with the NEA or its members, providing her decision with widespread influence where the largest U.S. labor union operates.
In a separate ruling, Judge Stephanie Gallagher from Maryland, appointed by President Donald Trump, granted a temporary reprieve against a February 14 department letter claiming that federal law prohibits schools from factoring race into educational decisions. “This Court takes no view as to whether the policies at issue here are good or bad, prudent or foolish, fair or unfair,” Gallagher wrote in her decision. “But this Court is constitutionally required to closely scrutinize whether the government went about creating and implementing them in the manner the law requires,” she added. “The government did not.”
A third decision issued by Judge Dabney Friedrich in the District of Columbia, another Trump appointee, further impeded the department from demanding schools certify compliance with the former administration’s directives. The judge indicated that the government’s threats likely contravene the Constitution.
The Education Department did not offer a comment when approached for a response.
This month, Education Secretary Linda McMahon's agency instructed state school systems to rapidly align with a Trump-era interpretation of federal anti-discrimination law or face potential lawsuits, civil penalties, and a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding. The agency later agreed to postpone the enforcement of its orders until a scheduled hearing, as part of a temporary agreement in the New Hampshire case.
In response, the NAACP filed a lawsuit in mid-April challenging that directive and promptly secured a portion of its request for an injunction after the hearing in the District of Columbia, according to court records.
“Our fight is far from over, but today’s decision is a victory for Black and Brown students across the country, whose right to an equal education has been directly threatened by this Administration’s corrosive actions and misinterpretations of civil rights law,” said NAACP CEO Derrick Johnson in a statement.
Last month, the NEA, along with its New Hampshire affiliate and various civil rights organizations, took the Education Department to federal court to contest guidance that mandated schools eliminate their diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. The American Federation of Teachers also joined forces with the American Sociological Association and an Oregon school district in a lawsuit in partnership with the Democracy Forward legal services organization.
"Today’s ruling allows educators and schools to continue to be guided by what’s best for students, not by the threat of illegal restrictions and punishment," stated NEA President Becky Pringle regarding the New Hampshire case.
“The court agreed that this vague and clearly unconstitutional requirement is a grave attack on students, our profession, honest history, and knowledge itself,” commented American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten concerning the Maryland case.
It should be noted that the rulings issued on Thursday are not final determinations regarding the lawsuits' merits; they merely restrict the department from enforcing its policies while the cases await additional rulings. Each decision indicated that the lawsuits appear likely to succeed on at least some of their claims.
Judge McCafferty’s 82-page ruling criticized the department's "Dear Colleague" letter from February, stating that it is "unconstitutionally vague" and likely surpasses the agency's statutory authority. The letter, along with a "End DEI" federal tip line, was described by the New Hampshire judge as potentially inciting a public “witch hunt” that could instill fear among teachers, risking their reputations due to subjective assessments.
"While it may be true that a line must be drawn somewhere between the Department’s lawful prerogative to enforce anti-discrimination law and its prohibition from controlling curriculum, the Letter and its associated documents do not toe that line," McCafferty concluded.
Navid Kalantari for TROIB News
