Why A U.S. District Court Blocked The Trump Administration’s Anti-DEI Directive

From Forbes.com

U.S. District Court Judge Landya McCafferty blocked the Trump administration’s anti-DEI directive to schools. The block applies only to public schools that work with the plaintiffs, the National Education Association, its New Hampshire affiliate, and the Center for Black Educator Development. Here’s what went into Thursday’s ruling.

The administration policy opposing diversity, equity and inclusion policies was rolled out starting with a “Dear Colleague” letter on February 14, the press release announcing its “End DEI” portal on February 27, and an April 3rd message strongly suggesting that states and local school districts sign a pledge that they had a “legal obligation” to follow the administration’s interpretation of Title VI and linking that compliance to continue receiving federal funding.

April 24 marked the due date for districts and states to sign. By that date, Matt Zalaznick reported for District Administration that many states-- including Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland and New Hampshire had complied-- while other states like Arizona were threatening individual districts that would not sign with a loss of funding. Education Week reported that 19 states said they would not sign.

McCafferty’s 82-page ruling opens with a pair of quotes from earlier cases to indicate the stakes of this case.

Ours is a nation “deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned.” Indeed, “[t]he Nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to [a] robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth out of a multitude of tongues, [rather] than through any kind of authoritative selection.”

McCafferty is quite clear on the chilling nature of the administration actions.

For many schools, loss of federal funding would be crippling. It is predictable—if not obvious— that such schools will eliminate all vestiges of DEI to avoid even the possibility of funding termination. Although the 2025 Letter does not make clear what exactly it prohibits, it makes at least one thing clear: schools should not come close to anything that could be considered “DEI,” lest they be deemed to have guessed wrong in violation of the 2025 Letter’s vague and expansive prohibitions.

She cites numerous examples of exactly that resultant chilling effect. The administration argues that the letter does not prohibit teachers from teaching certain books or the history of race, racism, gender, or other topics, but the court holds that assurance up against the language of the End DEI portal with its encouragement to parents to “share the receipts of the betrayal that has happened in our public schools.”

McCafferty rules that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their case, due to several factors.

First, vagueness. The letter is clear on consequences ("face potential loss of federal funding") but not on the actual behaviors being prohibited. McCafferty finds the administration definition of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” to be “ocean-wide” and its examples are far removed from the dictionary or generally understood meanings of the words. She cites several teachers who talk about how the vagueness leaves them uncertain whether or not they may teach material such as historical imperialism or the themes in “Heart of Darkness.”

Read the full post here.