Judge declines to block parts of Trump gender, DEI executive orders

The Hill

02-05-2025

A federal judge on Friday declined to block the enforcement of key provisions in President Trump's executive orders involving diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and gender in a challenge by three civil and human rights organizations.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly denied the advocacy groups' request for a preliminary injunction, which would have prohibited the Trump administration from implementing parts of three executive orders against the challengers.
The judge said they failed to establish standing for half of the challenged provisions, and on the other provisions, their constitutional claims 'falter for various reasons.'
'The motion before the Court is not about whether DEI policies, however defined in a given context, are good public policy. Nor is it about whether specific DEI initiatives comply with antidiscrimination law,' Kelly wrote in a 58-page order. 'Instead, it is about whether Plaintiffs have shown that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the executive orders at issue.
'Because they are not likely to prevail on the merits, the Court will deny the motion,' he said.
The three organizations — National Urban League, National Fair Housing Alliance and the AIDS Foundation of Chicago — sued earlier this year, contending that Trump's orders violate their First Amendment rights by censoring their views on DEI, accessibility and transgender rights. They also said the orders limit their ability to provide social and health services, like HIV treatment, fair housing and civil rights protections.
Donya Khadem, a lawyer for the groups, said during a hearing in March that the breadth of the orders has made it challenging to know how to comply. She pointed to the president's executive order titled 'Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.'
'Does that mean they can't say transgender people exist?' she asked, suggesting that 'even minimal loss' of First Amendment freedom amounts to irreparable harm.
But Kelly, the judge, pushed back and noted the challenge of creating a 'bright line' rule as to when conditions on government funding become unconstitutional.
'Why isn't the president permitted to have his or her policy priorities?' he asked.
Khadem said there are 'constitutional limits' to how a president can implement their policy agenda, calling Trump's perspective that DEI is 'un-American' amounts to viewpoint discrimination.
Kelly also questioned DOJ lawyer Pardis Gheibi over the confusion caused by Trump's orders during the March hearing, where arguments for and against a preliminary injunction were made.
'Plaintiffs can't tell what's covered,' he said. 'What is DEI and what is not?'
Gheibi said any questions the organizations have about Trump's orders amount to 'legal advice,' not evidence of the orders' deficiencies. She said the orders don't 'rise or fall' on whether a legal memo explaining their scope was attached.