A Baltimore judge issued a nationwide preliminary injunction on Friday, February 21, that halted the enforcement of President Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders (EOs). Earlier this month, the city of Baltimore and higher education groups sued the Trump administration in National Association of Higher Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump (Case No. 1:25-cv-00333-ABA), currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit challenged EOs issued by President Trump at the start of his term­—EO 14151 (“Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing”) and EO 14173 (“Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”).

These EOs aimed to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) offices and positions in the federal government and sought to deter publicly traded corporations, universities, and other large entities from supporting diversity initiatives. The plaintiffs alleged the EOs exceeded President Trump’s constitutional authority, and invoked a constitutionally impermissible chilling effect on free speech.

Specifically, the lawsuit challenged the following provisions[1]:

1. the “Termination Provision” of EO 14151, which directs federal agencies to “terminate… ‘equity-related’ grants or contracts;”
2. the “Certification Provision” or EO 14173, which provides that each grant or contract from federal agencies must contain a certification from the recipient that “it does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws;” and
3. the “Enforcement Threat Provision” of EO 14173, which directs the Attorney General to provide a report containing recommendations for enforcing Federal civil-rights laws and encouraging the private sector to “end illegal discrimination.” The President also mandates that the report contain a plan to “deter DEI programs” with an identification of potential “civil compliance investigations of publicly traded companies…” and other private sector establishments.

U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson found that the EOs likely violated the constitution. He found that the plaintiffs showed they would likely prevail in showing the EOs are “unconstitutionally vague on their face,” leaving federal contractors with “no reasonable way to know what, if anything, they can do to bring their grants into compliance.” The court also found that certain provisions “squarely, unconstitutionally, abridge[d] the freedom of speech.” The executive orders did not define terms like “equity-related” or “illegal DEI,” leaving companies uncertain about the types of programs or policies that were actually restricted.

The court determined an injunction was proper as to the Termination and Certification Provisions entirely, as well as portions of the Enforcement Threat Provision. Among the enjoined actions are:

• terminating or changing contracts deemed “equity-related;”
• requiring a federal contractor to certify that they do not operate programs promoting DEI that the government may contend violate anti-discrimination laws; or
• bringing any enforcement actions (including those under the False Claims Act) premised on any such certification.

However, the court declined to enjoin the Attorney General from preparing the report or engaging in the investigation provided for in EO 14173. Further, the court’s ruling does not impact the revocation of EO 11246.

While this preliminary injunction temporarily pauses the full enforcement of the EOs, federal contractors should continue to follow this case. To avoid doubt about compliance requirements, they should also seek legal counsel as they navigate the turbulence of the DEI landscape that continues to remain uncertain.

[1] Some of the EOs are expressly not at issue, including the directive to assess the operation impact of President Biden’s DEI policies and programs and the directive for Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to remove references to DEI from federal acquisition and contracting procedures.