A federal judge expressed concern that the administration might not be complying with an injunction prohibiting efforts to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
During an emergency motion for a status conference, the judge sought to minimize arguments but allowed both parties to address the issue. Plaintiffs claimed that barred language continued to appear in administrative agency documents.
An attorney representing a group of diversity officers pointed to a proposed contract between the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the City of Baltimore as an example. The contract required the city to certify that it did not operate programs promoting DEI in violation of anti-discrimination laws. Similar language appeared in a contract offered to San Francisco.
A Department of Justice attorney acknowledged the issue, stating that HUD was taking steps to remove the provision. The attorney assured the court that Baltimore would not be required to sign the contract to receive funding. The government’s legal representative suggested that the problematic language had originated from an outdated template mistakenly used, though uncertainty remained regarding Baltimore’s case.
While the judge accepted this explanation, he emphasized the need to ensure Baltimore’s ability to enter into the contract and secure funds. The government reaffirmed compliance, stating that HUD would reissue the contract without the contested provision.
The plaintiffs’ attorney welcomed the assurance but voiced concerns about a broader pattern. The attorney pointed out that HUD’s Secretary had shared the template publicly, highlighting the disputed language. Additionally, San Francisco had received an actual contract containing the provision, and the attorney claimed that hundreds of similar contracts had been distributed.
The case stemmed from executive orders directing the termination of contracts funding DEI initiatives, along with instructions for the Attorney General to deter such programs and consider launching compliance investigations. The judge had previously issued a nationwide injunction, ruling that the provisions violated the First Amendment and were unconstitutionally vague. Subsequent rulings reinforced the broad application of the injunction across all government agencies.
During the hearing, the plaintiffs requested that the DOJ attorney explicitly confirm that the government would not stand by the anti-DEI contract language. The judge pressed for clarity, but the government attorney stopped short of a full commitment. While acknowledging the certification provision as unenforceable, she emphasized the complexity of implementing the court’s order across a vast federal workforce. She argued that immediate, comprehensive compliance was unrealistic given the government’s structure.
The judge responded by underscoring that the injunction applied not only to enforcement but also to certification provisions. He expressed concern that full compliance had not yet been achieved. The hearing concluded with the judge supporting the plaintiffs’ request for a shorter briefing schedule to resolve the certification issue, with a scheduling order to follow soon.
