Appeals court rules Trump can implement anti-DEI executive orders for now
An appeals court on Friday lifted a block on executive orders seeking to end government support for diversity, equity and inclusion programs, handing the Trump administration a win after a string of setbacks defending President Trump's agenda from dozens of lawsuits.
The decision from a three-judge panel allows the orders to be enforced as a lawsuit challenging them plays out. The appeals court judges halted a nationwide injunction from U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore.
Two of the judges on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that Mr. Trump's anti-DEI push could eventually raise concerns about First Amendment rights but said Abelson's sweeping block went too far.
"My vote should not be understood as agreement with the orders' attack on efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion," Judge Pamela Harris wrote. Two of the panel's members were appointed by former President Barack Obama, while the third was appointed by Mr. Trump.
Abelson had found the orders likely violated free-speech rights and are unconstitutionally vague since they don't have a specific definition of DEI.
Mr. Trump signed an order his first day in office directing federal agencies to terminate all "equity-related" grants or contracts. He signed a follow-up order requiring federal contractors to certify that they don't promote DEI.
The city of Baltimore and other groups sued the Trump administration, arguing the executive orders are an unconstitutional overreach of presidential authority.
The Justice Department has argued that the president was targeting only DEI programs that violate federal civil rights laws. Government attorneys said the administration should be able to align federal spending with the president's priorities.
Abelson, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, agreed with the plaintiffs that the executive orders discourage businesses, organizations and public entities from openly supporting diversity, equity and inclusion.
Efforts to increase diversity have long been under attack by Republicans who contend the measures threaten merit-based hiring, promotion and educational opportunities for white people. Supporters say the programs help institutions meet the needs of increasingly diverse populations while addressing the lasting impacts of systemic racism.
Their purpose was to foster equitable environments in businesses and schools, especially for historically marginalized communities. Researchers say DEI initiatives date back to the 1960s but they expanded in 2020 during increased calls for racial justice.
In addition to the mayor and the Baltimore City Council, the plaintiffs include the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors and the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, which represents restaurant workers across the country.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
24 minutes ago
- Axios
Scoop: Trump pressed to take hard line with Iran after Israel strikes
A group of pro-Israel members of Congress is urging President Trump to ensure "zero enrichment, zero pathway to a nuclear weapon" in negotiations with Iran, Axios has learned. Why it matters: The lawmakers — including a Republican, Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) — said Israel's strikes against Iranian nuclear sites and other military targets has created a "renewed sense of urgency" on the issue. "This decisive action comes after two months of unsuccessful diplomatic attempts and represents a critical chance to stop the Iranian regime from acquiring a nuclear weapon," they wrote in a letter to Trump first obtained by Axios. The White House did not immediately respond to Axios' Saturday afternoon request for comment on the letter. Driving the news: The letter is led by Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), a staunchly pro- Israel centrist Democrat, and signed by seven other House Democrats, in addition to Bacon. The nine lawmakers noted that the two-month deadline which Trump set in March for reaching a nuclear deal arrived on Thursday — the day Israel launched its strike. They urged him to add "crushing diplomatic pressure ... to Israel's military pressure" by working with European countries to impose "Snapback" sanctions on Iran for being out of compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal. What they're saying: Trump told Axios' Barak Ravid on Friday that he believes Israel's strike improved the chance of reaching a nuclear agreement with Iran. "I couldn't get them to a deal in 60 days. They were close, they should have done it. Maybe now it will happen," he said. But Iran's foreign minister said that nuclear talks planned for Sunday have been cancelled, and Trump said Saturday that the war between Israel and Iran "should end."
27 minutes ago
The GOP's big bill would bring changes to Medicaid for millions
WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has been clear about his red line as the Senate takes up the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act: no Medicaid cuts. But what, exactly, would be a cut? Hawley and other Republicans acknowledge that the main cost-saving provision in the bill – new work requirements on able-bodied adults who receive health care through the Medicaid program -- would cause millions of people to lose their coverage. All told, estimates are 10.9 million fewer people would have health coverage under the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. That includes some 8 million fewer in the Medicaid program, including 5.2 million dropping off because of the new eligibility requirements. 'I know that will reduce the number of people on Medicaid,' Hawley told a small scrum of reporters in the hallways at the Capitol. 'But I'm for that because I want people who are able bodied but not working to work.' Hawley and other Republicans are walking a politically fine line on how to reduce federal spending on Medicaid while also promising to protect a program that serves some 80 million Americans and is popular with the public. As the party pushes ahead on President Donald Trump' s priority package, Republicans insist they are not cutting the vital safety net program but simply rooting out what they call waste, fraud and abuse. Whether that argument lands with voters could go a long way toward determining whether Trump's bill ultimately ends up boosting — or dragging down — Republicans as they campaign for reelection next year. Republicans say that it's wrong to call the reductions in health care coverage 'cuts.' Instead, they've characterized the changes as rules that would purge people who are taking advantage of the system and protect it for the most vulnerable who need it most. House Republicans wrote the bill with instructions to find $880 billion in cuts from programs under the purview of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has a sprawling jurisdiction that includes Medicaid. In the version of the bill that the House passed on a party-line vote last month, the overall cuts ended up exceeding that number. The Kaiser Family Foundation projects that the bill will result in a $793 billion reduction in spending on Medicaid. Additionally, the House Ways & Means Committee, which handles federal tax policy, imposed a freeze on a health care provider tax that many states impose. Critics say the tax improperly boosts federal Medicaid payments to the states, but supporters like Hawley say it's important funding for rural hospitals. 'What we're doing here is an important and, frankly, heroic thing to preserve the program so that it doesn't become insolvent,' Speaker Mike Johnson said on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, meanwhile, has denounced the bill as an 'assault on the healthcare of the American people' and warned years of progress in reducing the number of uninsured people is at risk. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the GOP's proposed changes to federal health programs would result in 10.9 million fewer people having health care coverage. Nearly 8 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid by 2034 under the legislation, the CBO found, including 5.2 million people who would lose coverage due to the proposed work requirements. It said 1.4 million immigrants without legal status would lose coverage in state programs. The new Medicaid requirements would apply to nondisabled adults under age 65 who are not caretakers or parents, with some exceptions. The bill passed by the U.S. House stipulates that those eligible would need to work, take classes, or record community service for 80 hours per month. The Kaiser Family Foundation notes that more than 90% of people enrolled in Medicaid already meet those criteria. The legislation also penalizes states that fund health insurance for immigrants who have not confirmed their immigration status, and the CBO expects that those states will stop funding Medicaid for those immigrants altogether. Republicans have cited what they call the out-of-control spending in federal programs to explain their rationale for the changes proposed in the legislation. 'What we are trying to do in the One Big Beautiful Bill is ensuring that limited resources are protected for pregnant women, for children, for seniors, for individuals with disabilities,' said Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., in a speech on the House floor. Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso argued that Medicaid recipients who are not working spend their time watching television and playing video games rather than looking for employment. Republicans also criticize the CBO itself, the congressional scorekeeper, questioning whether its projections are accurate. The CBO score for decades has been providing non-partisan analysis of legislation and budgetary matters. Its staff is prohibited from making political contributions and is currently led by a former economic adviser for the George W. Bush administration. While Republicans argue that their signature legislation delivers on Trump's 2024 campaign promises, health care isn't one of the president's strongest issues with Americans. Most U.S. adults, 56%, disapproved of how Trump was handling health care policy in CNN polling from March. And according to AP VoteCast, about 6 in 10 voters in the November election said they wanted the government 'more involved' in ensuring that Americans have health care coverage. Only about 2 in 10 wanted the government less involved in this, and about 2 in 10 said its involvement was about right. Half of American adults said they expected the Trump administration's policies to increase their family's health care costs, according to a May poll from KFF, and about 6 in 10 believed those policies would weaken Medicaid. If the federal government significantly reduced Medicaid spending, about 7 in 10 adults said they worried it would negatively impact nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care providers in their community. For Hawley, the 'bottom lines' are omitting provisions that could cause rural hospitals to close and hardworking citizens to lose their benefits. He and other Republicans are especially concerned about the freeze on the providers' tax in the House's legislation that they warn could hurt rural hospitals. 'Medicaid benefits for people who are working or who are otherwise qualified,' Hawley said. 'I do not want to see them cut.'
Associated Press
37 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Justice Department's early moves on voting and elections signal a shift from its traditional role
ATLANTA (AP) — In North Carolina, it was a lawsuit over the state's voter registration records. In Arizona and Wisconsin, it was a letter to state election officials warning of potential administrative violations. And in Colorado, it was a demand for election records going back to 2020. Those actions in recent weeks by the U.S. Department of Justice's voting section may seem focused on the technical machinery of how elections are run but signal deeper changes when combined with the departures of career attorneys and decisions to drop various voting rights cases. They represent a shift away from the division's traditional role of protecting access to the ballot box. Instead, the actions address concerns that have been raised by a host of conservative activists following years of false claims surrounding elections in the U.S. Some voting rights and election experts also note that by targeting certain states — presidential battlegrounds or those controlled by Democrats — the moves could be foreshadowing an expanded role for the department in future elections. David Becker, a former department attorney who worked on voting rights cases and now leads the Center for Election Innovation & Research, said the Justice Department's moves represent a departure from focusing on major violations of federal law. 'This would be like the police department prioritizing jaywalking over murder investigations,' he said. A Justice Department spokesperson responded with 'no comment' to an emailed request for more information about the actions, including whether similar ones had been taken in any other states. Actions come amid major changes at the DOJ Conservatives for years have called for an overhaul at the Justice Department in both personnel and priorities. President Donald Trump also has criticized how elections are run, falsely blaming his 2020 loss on widespread fraud. Earlier this year, he signed an executive order seeking a sweeping overhaul of election operations — an authority the Constitution grants to the states and Congress. After his win last November, Trump installed key allies at the Justice Department, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, who has made similar claims about the 2020 election. Multiple reviews in the presidential battleground states affirmed Democrat Joe Biden's win in 2020, Trump and his allies lost dozens of lawsuits, and even Trump's attorney general at the time said there was no evidence of widespread fraud. Justin Levitt, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the department's civil rights division, said most of the DOJ's actions appeared reasonable and focused on issues that had already been raised by conservative activists in those states. They also are the type that would be expected from a conservative administration, he said, with the exception of the Colorado request. He called that 'well out of bounds.' 'This administration has prioritized grievance, even perceived grievance when there is no basis in fact,' said Levitt, who also served as a senior policy adviser in the Biden administration. 'And it's dismaying, but not surprising, that the civil rights division would do the same.' Department wants records related to the 2020 election The department's request to Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, asked for all records relating to last year's presidential election. Federal law requires those to be kept for 22 months. In the request, the department stated it had received a complaint alleging that Griswold's office was not in compliance with federal law relating to voter registration. The request also directs Griswold to preserve any records of the 2020 election that might still be in the state's possession. Griswold, in an interview, called the request a 'fishing expedition' and said her office responded by providing state voting files. 'I'm not even sure they know what they are looking for,' Griswold said. 'They can request all the data they want, and it's not going to prove anything.' North Carolina elections have been a particular target for Republicans In North Carolina, where Republican lawmakers recently wrested control of the state election board from the Democratic governor, Justice Department lawyers filed a lawsuit accusing state election officials of failing to ensure that all voter records include identifying information, such as a driver's license. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who oversees the civil rights division, said in a statement announcing the lawsuit that accurate voter rolls are critical to ensuring elections are conducted 'fairly, accurately, and without fraud.' The previous board had acknowledged the issue and updated the state's voter registration form. The new board leadership has vowed to address it. Skeptical of the motives In Wisconsin, which Trump won in 2016 and 2024 but lost in 2020, department lawyers recently sent a letter to the state election commission accusing it of not providing a complaint process for those raising concerns. This comes as Republican state lawmakers are pushing legislation to expand the ability to appeal decisions made by the six-member commission, which is equally divided between Republicans and Democrats. Republican lawmakers have long complained about commission decisions they perceive as benefiting Democrats. The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, a law firm that frequently defends Republicans on election issues, supports both efforts, said Lucas Vebber, the firm's deputy counsel. 'It's ensuring that Wisconsinites are entitled to have their complaints heard and adjudicated,' he said. 'As something as important as our elections, it's vital to ensure that process is transparent and available to everyone.' Rep. Lee Snodgrass, a Democrat on the Wisconsin Legislature's elections committee, said state law needs some tightening around how election complaints are handled, but she's dubious about the motives of the Trump administration and conservative activists in the state. They are looking for ways 'to cast doubt on election integrity, so if they don't get the results they want they can cry foul,' Snodgrass said. Concerns about future actions In Arizona, DOJ lawyers said the state was not clearly telling voter registration applicants to provide a driver's license if they have one and asked the state to conduct a review to identify any noncitizens. Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, responded by saying Arizona requires those registering to vote in state and local elections to provide proof of citizenship and conducts checks using the state's motor vehicle records. In Oregon, Justice Department lawyers weighed in on an ongoing lawsuit filed by the conservative group Judicial Watch. It alleges the state has failed to comply with federal laws on maintaining voter lists and making these records available for public inspection. John Powers, a former Justice Department attorney who now serves as legal director for the Advancement Project, said he was concerned about the moves coupled with the Justice Department's staff departures and its withdrawal from voting rights cases. Powers said he hoped, with midterm elections next year, that the department would not pursue minor technical issues in a way that could undermine public confidence in elections. 'I would be lying if I said I wasn't concerned about what the future might hold,' he said. ___ Bauer reported from Madison, Wisconsin.
