Court Clarifies Nationwide Injunction Against Anti-DEI Executive Orders Applies to All Federal Agencies
On March 10, 2025, a federal district court in Maryland clarified the scope of its February 21, 2025, nationwide injunction against enforcement of three key provisions in President Trump's executive orders targeting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs.
As described in a prior Stinson alert, the injunction in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Donald J. Trump paused implementation of the “Termination Provision,” “Certification Provision” and “Enforcement Threat Provision” in DEI-related executive orders. The defendants (President Trump and several federal agencies that were named as defendants in the lawsuit) have filed a notice that they are appealing the district court’s decision to issue a nationwide injunction. This will likely mean that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (which covers Maryland) will decide whether the district court correctly found the “Termination Provision,” “Certification Provision” and “Enforcement Threat Provision” are likely unconstitutional. The challenged provisions are contained in Executive Order 14173, "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity," and Executive Order 14151, "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing."
While the appeal is pending, the plaintiffs asked the district court to clarify whether the nationwide injunction applies just to President Trump and to the specific federal agencies originally named in the lawsuit, or more broadly to all federal agencies. The district court’s March 10 order clarifies that the injunction applies to all federal agencies, not just to those specific federal agencies named as defendants in the lawsuit.
The district court’s March 10, 2025, order confirms that, for now, the Executive Orders’ “Termination Provision,” “Certification Provision” and “Enforcement Threat Provision” are on hold, based on the district court’s findings that the provisions are likely unconstitutional.
