Introduction to the Ruling
A federal judge on Thursday blocked Trump administration directives that threatened to cut federal funding for public schools with diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
Background of the Lawsuit
The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by the National Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, which accused the Republican administration of giving “unconstitutionally vague” guidance and violating teachers’ First Amendment rights.
Multiple Judges Weigh In
A second judge in Maryland on Thursday postponed the effective date of some U.S. Education Department anti-DEI guidance, and a third judge in Washington, D.C., blocked another provision from taking effect.
Details of the Directives
In February, the department told schools and colleges they needed to end any practice that differentiates people based on their race. Earlier this month, it ordered states to gather signatures from local school systems certifying compliance with civil rights laws, including the rejection of what the federal government calls “illegal DEI practices.”
Impact of the Directives
The directives do not carry the force of law but threaten to use civil rights enforcement to rid schools of DEI practices. Schools were warned that continuing such practices “in violation of federal law” could lead to U.S. Justice Department litigation and a termination of federal grants and contracts.
Judicial Ruling
U.S. District Court Judge Landya McCafferty in New Hampshire said the April letter does not make clear what the department believes a DEI program entails or when it believes such programs cross the line into violating civil rights law. “The Letter does not even define what a ‘DEI program’ is,” McCafferty wrote.
Free Speech Concerns
The judge also said there is reason to believe the department’s actions amount to a violation of teachers’ free speech rights.
“A professor runs afoul of the 2025 Letter if she expresses the view in her teaching that structural racism exists in America, but does not do so if she denies structural racism’s existence. That is textbook viewpoint discrimination,” McCafferty wrote.
Reaction and Next Steps
An Education Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
States were given until the end of Thursday to submit certification of their schools’ compliance, but some have indicated they would not comply with the order. Education officials in some Democratic-led states have said the administration is overstepping its authority and that there is nothing illegal about DEI.
Related Rulings
In the ruling in Maryland, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher postponed that memo. She found it was improperly issued and forces teachers to choose between “being injured through suppressing their speech or through facing enforcement for exercising their constitutional rights.” That suit was filed by the American Federation of Teachers, one of the nation’s largest teachers’ unions.
“The court agreed that this vague and clearly unconstitutional requirement is a grave attack on students, our profession, honest history and knowledge itself,” Randi Weingarten, president of the AFT, said in a statement.
NAACP Involvement
A judge in Washington, D.C., granted a preliminary injunction against the certification letter after the NAACP argued it failed to identify specific DEI practices that would run afoul of the law.
Common Arguments
All three lawsuits argue that the guidance limits academic freedom and is so vague it leaves schools and educators in limbo about what they may do, such as whether voluntary student groups for minority students are still allowed.
Certification Requirements
The April directive asked states to collect the certification form from local school districts and also sign it on behalf of the state, giving assurance that schools are in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Threats of Funding Cuts
President Donald Trump’s education secretary, Linda McMahon, has warned of potential funding cuts if states do not return the form by Friday.
In a Tuesday interview on the Fox Business Network, McMahon said states that refuse to sign could “risk some defunding in their districts.” The purpose of the form is “to make sure there’s no discrimination that’s happening in any of the schools,” she said.
Existing Requirements
Schools and states are already required to give assurances to that effect in separate paperwork, but the new form adds language on DEI, warning that using diversity programs to discriminate can bring funding cuts, fines and other penalties.
Funding Implications
The form threatens schools’ access to Title I, the largest source of federal revenue for K-12 education and a lifeline for schools in low-income areas.
Conclusion
The ruling by the federal judge, along with the actions of judges in Maryland and Washington, D.C., marks a significant pushback against the Trump administration’s efforts to curb diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in public schools. The decisions highlight concerns over academic freedom, free speech, and the vague nature of the directives. As the situation continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how the administration will respond and what implications these rulings will have for schools and educators across the country.
FAQs
- Q: What was the basis of the lawsuit against the Trump administration’s directives?
- A: The lawsuit was based on the accusation that the administration’s guidance was “unconstitutionally vague” and violated teachers’ First Amendment rights.
- Q: What did the February memo from the Education Department state?
- A: The memo stated that schools and colleges needed to end any practice that differentiates people based on their race.
- Q: What is the potential consequence for schools that do not comply with the certification order?
- A: Schools that do not comply risk funding cuts, as they could face termination of federal grants and contracts.
- Q: What organizations were involved in the lawsuits against the administration’s directives?
- A: Organizations involved included the National Education Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Federation of Teachers, and the NAACP.
