A federal judge threw a roadblock Thursday in the administration’s effort to shut down diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in schools, saying President Trump’s team couldn’t even settle on a solid definition of what constituted illegal DEI.
Judge Landya McCafferty, an Obama appointee to the court in New Hampshire, issued a preliminary injunction largely halting the Education Department from carrying out its new policy threatening investigations and punishment for schools that continued to push DEI.
She said the policy, laid out in a February “Dear Colleague” letter, is too vague, stifles professors’ free speech rights, and violates regulatory law by skipping over the usual notice-and-comment process for big government policy changes.
The Trump administration had argued that its intent was to get schools to stop illegal discrimination.
But Judge McCafferty said the actual policy went well beyond that.
“By its own admission, it seeks to ‘End DEI,’” she said. That created a situation where department officials would “be free” to pursue their own personal “predilections” as they sought to carry out the Dear Colleague mandate, she said.
“DEI as a concept is broad: one can imagine a wide range of viewpoints on what the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion mean when describing a program or practice,” the judge wrote.
Hours later another federal judge, Stephanie Gallagher issued a largely similar blockade in case brought in U.S. District Court in Maryland.
Judge Gallagher, a Trump appointee, said the administration’s new policy was a major change in interpretation of the law, and so it needed to go through the full regulatory process.
“This case, especially, underscores why following the proper procedures, even when it is burdensome, is so important,” she ruled.
Judge McCafferty was far more expansive in her scolding, saying the Trump team’s view would silence important topics from being taught in classrooms.
She pointed to language in the Dear Colleague letter that said DEI programs were illegal discrimination if they taught that “certain racial groups bear unique moral burdens” or taught that the U.S. is built on “systemic and structural racism.”
Judge McCafferty said that could mean a history teacher couldn’t teach about the economics of slave states in the antebellum period. She cited evidence that one New Hampshire middle school teacher fears teaching the details of the Civil War, Reconstruction, the founding of the Ku Klux Klan and the Tulsa Race Massacre.
Another New Hampshire high school teacher has questioned whether he can teach a unit involving “Heart of Darkness,” Joseph Conrad’s 1899 book detailing European imperialism, and asking students to relate it to events of today.
Trump lawyers had argued the lawsuit was premature because the Education Department hadn’t begun any enforcement.
Government lawyers also said the policy is the result of a 2023 Supreme Court ruling that ruled the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits differential treatment based on race.
The New Hampshire lawsuit was brought by the National Education Association, its New Hampshire chapter, and the Center for Black Educator Development. The Maryland lawsuit was led by the American Federation of Teachers.
Judge McCafferty said her injunction is not universal in that it doesn’t block the Education Department policy outright. But it does block its enforcement against any institution that employs or contracts with one of the plaintiff group’s members.
Judge Gallagher, though, issued a blockade on the entire Dear Colleague letter.
Trump opponents hailed the rulings as a “victory for students, educators and the fundamental principles of academic freedom.”
“The federal government has no authority to dictate what schools can and cannot teach to serve its own agenda, and this ruling is an important step in reaffirming that,” said Sarah Hinger, deputy director of the Racial Justice Program at the American Civil Liberties Union.
