A federal judge recently criticized the Trump administration’s efforts to enforce its anti-Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) orders, deeming them unconstitutional and a violation of First Amendment rights. In January 2025, President Donald Trump issued two executive orders aiming to eliminate DEI programs from federal government contracts and to prevent contractors from implementing in-house DEI initiatives. The orders also tasked the U.S. Attorney General with deterring such programs and potentially launching investigations to enforce compliance.
However, U.S. District Judge Adam B. Abelson, appointed by President Joe Biden, issued a preliminary nationwide injunction against the orders on February 21, 2025. The government attempted to appeal the ruling, but on February 28, the court denied the motion to stay the injunction. In a detailed 10-page memorandum, the judge explained that the Trump administration’s actions amounted to “viewpoint discrimination,” a severe breach of First Amendment protections.
The judge emphasized that the government’s efforts to penalize or suppress certain viewpoints specifically those supporting DEI were unconstitutional. Such actions fall under the category of “content discrimination,” which the Supreme Court has long held to be a violation of free speech rights. By targeting DEI principles, the government sought to deter individuals and institutions from expressing certain viewpoints, particularly those related to race, gender, and equity, which it opposed. This suppression not only threatened to punish government contractors for their beliefs but also extended to private individuals and entities who received federal funding.
The court’s opinion highlighted that the executive orders expressly sought to regulate speech based on its content and aimed to silence or penalize speech that the government disagreed with. It also noted that such efforts undermined the freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment. The judge pointed out that the government was effectively using its funding powers to control the speech of contractors, threatening the termination of benefits or imposing penalties for public discourse on DEI-related matters.
The ruling also raised concerns about the vagueness of some of the anti-DEI directives. The plaintiffs, including the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, argued that certain provisions were too unclear, making it difficult for individuals and organizations to understand what actions might result in punishment. The judge agreed that these directives were not sufficiently defined to ensure due process and compliance with the Fifth Amendment, which mandates clarity in laws that can limit free speech or association.
The Trump administration had argued that the injunction interfered with the Executive’s authority to enforce policy and implement the President’s directives. However, the judge dismissed this claim, reaffirming that while the Executive branch has the right to pursue its policy goals, it must do so within the bounds of the Constitution, which includes respecting free speech and due process rights.
The ruling also noted that, despite the preliminary nature of the case, several provisions of the executive orders appeared to clearly violate the First Amendment. The judge reiterated that the chilling effect on free speech was significant enough to warrant the preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs were found likely to succeed in their case, with the government failing to provide new evidence or arguments to justify lifting the injunction.
In their last-ditch attempt to influence the court, Department of Justice lawyers referenced Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. However, Judge Abelson found these references unconvincing, pointing out that the issues discussed by the Justices were not directly relevant to the case at hand. In conclusion, the court’s decision emphasized the primacy of constitutional rights, particularly free speech, over political agendas that aim to suppress certain viewpoints.
