Three judges, including two Trump appointees, rule against the Department of Education's anti-DEI policy
The policy was first laid out in a so-called Dear Colleague letter sent to schools in February. Starting this month, schools receiving federal funding would be subject to certain certification mandates requiring that they turn over information regarding their compliance with the Trump administration's prohibitions.
US District Judge Landya McCafferty said in a scathing opinion that the administration's policy, was 'textbook viewpoint discrimination,' likely violating the First Amendment's free speech protections. She and another judge, US District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, also concluded that the policy was likely unconstitutionally vague.
She also concluded that the National Education Association, the administration's opponent in the case, was likely to succeed in its arguments that the policy was unconstitutionally vague and that the agency ran afoul of procedural steps required by law in how it implemented the policy.
'The ban on DEI embodied in the 2025 Letter leaves teachers with a Hobson's Choice,' McCafferty, a Barack Obama appointee who sits in New Hampshire, wrote, noting that the educators must choose between teaching curricula that invites penalty from the federal government or risking their professional credentials by aiding the Trump policy.
'The Constitution requires more,' she wrote.
Friedrich, a Trump appointee who announced her ruling after a hearing Thursday in Washington DC, said that the letter failed to 'delineate between a lawful DEI practice and an unlawful one,' making the task of reviewing compliance too difficult.
The third ruling against the policy came from Judge Stephanie Gallagher, a Trump appointee who sits in Baltimore. She found that the Dear Colleague letter ran afoul of procedural requirements required by law for implementing new agency policy.
'This Court takes no view as to whether the policies at issue here are good or bad, prudent or foolish, fair or unfair,' Gallagher said in her ruling. 'But this Court is constitutionally required to closely scrutinize whether the government went about creating and implementing them in the manner the law requires. The government did not.'
The rulings come after the Trump administration reached a short-term agreement with the challengers in the New Hampshire case to pause enforcement of the policy while the judge considered whether to issue a preliminary injunction. That agreement was set to expire on Thursday.
Trump has waged war on DEI efforts since the start of his second term and has taken action against several elite universities, demanding changes to their DEI programs. The administration has already rolled back DEI programs, arrested international students and revoked their visas, and frozen federal funding for schools that have refused to submit to its demands.
The administration froze over $2 billion in multi-year grants and contracts at Harvard University after its leaders refused to make key policy changes, including eliminating DEI programs, resulting in a clash over academic freedom, federal funding and campus oversight as Harvard sued the federal government.
Policy changes were also demanded of Columbia University, though the school later announced several changes to address the Trump administration's demands, an apparent concession to the federal government.
The NAACP, which filed the case in DC's federal court, said Friedrich's ruling 'is a victory for Black and Brown students across the country, whose right to an equal education has been directly threatened by this Administration's corrosive actions and misinterpretations of civil rights law.'
The group representing the teachers' associations and public school district that sued over the policy in Baltimore also celebrated the ruling there.
'This ruling is a win for educators, students and communities across the nation,' Democracy Forward President and CEO Skye Perryman said. 'The nationwide injunction will pause at least part of the chaos the Trump administration is unleashing in classrooms and learning communities throughout the country.'
This story has been updated with additional developments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
25 minutes ago
- CNN
New Mexico's governor called in the state's National Guard to address crime issues. Here's how they're being used
Federal agencies US military Donald TrumpFacebookTweetLink Follow In New Mexico's most populous city, National Guard troops are listening to the police dispatch calls, monitoring traffic cameras and helping to secure crime scene perimeters, tasks not usually part of the job. The New Mexico National Guard is in Albuquerque to help counter what officials have called a surge in crime, but unlike the recent deployment of troops in military fatigues by the federal government in the nation's capital and earlier in Los Angeles amid protests over immigration enforcement, the state's polo-shirted Guard troops were ordered in by the Democratic governor. And last week, New Mexico's governor declared a state of emergency in other parts of the state, which gives her the discretion to mobilize more troops. Here's how a National Guard deployment is playing out in New Mexico and why it matters. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham's state of emergency order issued for Rio Arriba County, the city of Española and area pueblos, was made at the request of the local governments, she said. The Albuquerque deployment of 60 to 70 troops came after an emergency request from the city's police department citing the 'fentanyl epidemic and rising violent juvenile crime as critical issues requiring immediate intervention.' The new declaration is aimed at helping local police respond to a 'significant surge' in violent crime, drug trafficking and public safety threats that have 'overwhelmed local resources.' Rio Arriba County has the highest overdose death rate in the state, the governor's news release said. The troops are helping police with non-law enforcement duties and are not armed, will not make arrests, detain anyone, use force or engage in any immigration-related activities, the city said. 'We understand there are concerns based on what is taking place in other parts of the country, and we want to assure the public that here in Albuquerque, the Guard's role is clearly defined, and focused on support without enforcement,' Police Chief Harold Medina said in a June news release. CNN has contacted the Albuquerque Police Department and the New Mexico National Guard about whether the deployment has been effective but did not receive a response. 'There is no question why the NM National Guard is helping out,' New Mexico National Guard spokesman Hank Minitrez said in a June Facebook post. The post described troops working behind the scenes in police offices, and conducting traffic management and manning perimeters around crime scenes when necessary. Albuquerque officials said last month they saw 'success with targeted resources' in the city's downtown. Shootings are down 20% this year compared with 2024, the city said in a news release, a figure that tracks with data provided to CNN by the governor's office. Grisham, a Democrat, criticized President Donald Trump's deployment of 800 troops in Washington, DC, as 'executive overreach' and said the contrast 'couldn't be clearer' between her state's usage of the National Guard and that of Trump's. The DC National Guard reports only to the president, while a governor acts as the 'commander in chief' of their state's troops and police agencies. Trump has suggested he could do the same in other major Democratic-led cities despite their leaders not asking for help. Meanwhile on the West Coast, questions are still lingering in a court case over the president's deployment of troops to Los Angeles in June as dramatic protests unfolded over immigration enforcement in parts of the city. The visual contrast between the troops in New Mexico and those sent to LA and the capital shows a difference in approach and intent. Grisham's office said the 'key difference' between her deployment of troops and Trump's is her order was in response to direct requests from local communities. 'While President Trump uses the National Guard to trample local leadership, New Mexico brings together local and state governments to make our communities genuinely safer,' she said. California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the federal intervention in his state 'purposely inflammatory.' Washington, DC, Attorney General Brian Schwalb called the president's actions unnecessary and pointed out violent crime in the district reached 30-year lows last year. Trump said he was going to 'look at' taking action in Chicago, New York and Los Angeles because of their crime rates when he announced his plans to take control of DC's police department this week. It is not clear what specifically Trump wants to do in other cities. New York, Los Angeles and Chicago have all seen a sustained decline in crime so far this year, according to a mid-year report from the independent nonpartisan Council on Criminal Justice. It's a 'dangerous precedent' for the federal government to start deploying troops to deal with local and state policing matters, as they are historically used for crowd control, protecting federal property and federal workers, or responding to a natural disaster, according to Jeffrey Swartz, a former National Guard member and professor emeritus at Cooley Law School. The courts in California have yet to address a claim at the center of the case brought by Newsom to block Trump's deployment of troops in the city: whether the troops violated the Posse Comitatus Act, a 19th century law prohibiting the use of the US military for domestic law enforcement. The three-day trial concluded last week, but the judge did not say when he will rule. 'When the president nationalizes a unit or a state National Guard, they now fall under the Posse Comitatus Act saying they are not allowed to be used for civil policing,' said Swartz. 'He cannot authorize federal troops to make arrests. That is solely within the power of the governor.' The National Guard can, however, take someone into custody under circumstances where there's a danger to federal property or federal officers, he added. The act reserves law enforcement functions to the states, but its language is short, which 'lends itself to vagueness and argumentation,' said David Shapiro, lecturer at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Swartz said National Guardsmen 'don't like the idea of being on the streets and being put in a position where they might have to use force against fellow citizens.' 'These people are citizen soldiers, not full-time. They have jobs. They have families,' he said. 'They signed up to protect the country against external threats, not internal ones.'
Axios
26 minutes ago
- Axios
Rubio says peace agreement "a long ways off" after Putin summit
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday that "we're not at the precipice" of a peace agreement after President Trump's Alaska summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin ended without a deal on Russia's war in Ukraine. The big picture: Trump, who Axios previously reported set a ceasefire as the goal of the talks, said "we didn't get there" after the meeting. Rubio on Sunday said both sides would have to make concessions, but refused to name any that Putin agreed to. Now, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, joined by several European leaders, will travel to Washington for a potentially difficult meeting with Trump on Monday. Driving the news: Rubio, who made appearances across the Sunday political show lineup, told ABC's Martha Raddatz a ceasefire was not the aim, arguing, "You're not going to reach a ceasefire or peace agreement in a meeting" without Ukraine present. If an agreement isn't reached, Rubio said, there will be consequences — but he emphasized the administration is trying to avoid such measures. Late last month, Trump threatened to shorten Putin's deadline to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine or face heavy sanctions, which he said would include "secondary sanctions and tariffs." Yes, but: Rubio on Sunday argued that if the U.S. levies additional sanctions, the "talking stops." "If this morning the president woke up and said, 'I'm putting these terrible ... strong sanctions on Russia,' that's fine — [it] may make people feel good for a couple hours," he said on Fox's "Sunday Morning Futures." "But here's what you're basically saying ... talks are over for the foreseeable future." He reiterated that view on NBC's "Meet the Press," saying that he doesn't believe new sanctions would force Putin to accept a ceasefire. "We may very well wind up in that place," he said of new sanctions. "I hope not. Because that means that peace talks failed." The other side: Democrats on Sunday blasted the president over the meeting, which began with a red carpet rollout, and denounced the lack of immediate consequences for Russia. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) described the summit as a "great day for Russia" in an interview with NBC's Kristen Welker, saying Putin left with "his photo op with zero commitments made and zero consequences." His Democratic colleague, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), said on ABC's "This Week" that Trump "got played" by Putin and that "[a]ll the threatened sanctions ... apparently have been set aside." Van Hollen called for the Senate to move ahead on bipartisan legislation that would impose new sanctions on Russia. Catch up quick: Trump, in a Truth Social post after the summit, said the meeting — and a subsequent phone call with Zelensky and European leaders — went "very well." He wrote that it "was determined by all" that a peace agreement, rather than a "mere Ceasefire Agreement" would be the best solution. Zelensky had been adamant that there must be a ceasefire before peace talks, Axios' Barak Ravid reports. The terms that Putin laid out in the summit included that Ukraine cede two of the four regions to which Russia has laid claim and freeze the front lines in the other two, Axios' Barak Ravid and Dave Lawler reported, citing two sources briefed on a call U.S. officials held with other allied leaders. Flashback: Zelensky's Monday trip to Washington comes around six months after Trump's February Oval Office meeting with the Ukrainian leader boiled over into a heated argument. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte are all expected to attend the meeting with Zelensky. Friction point: On CBS News' "Face the Nation," Rubio denied that those leaders were joining Zelensky as backup to protect him from being bullied into a deal. "This is such a stupid media narrative; that they are coming here tomorrow because Trump is going to bully Zelensky into a bad deal," he said. "We invited them to come," he added. "The president invited them to come."
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
GM's quarterly results illustrate the folly of tariffs
General Motors, a cornerstone of American industry, is suffering the consequences of President Trump's unconstitutional 25 percent tariffs on imported vehicles and auto parts. In the second quarter of 2025, GM suffered a $1.1 billion tariff blow to its operating income, slashing the company's profit margin from a healthy 9 percent to just 6.1 percent. Net income plunged by 36.1 percent from the prior quarter and by a staggering 40.7 percent compared to a year ago. Although the estimated tariff impact for the full year of $4 billion to $5 billion is less than 3 percent of GM's overall revenue, that cost represents more than half of the typical annual income for the company over the past decade. The consequences extend far beyond GM's balance sheet. Tariffs, paid by importers to the federal government, are partly absorbed by companies and partly passed to consumers. We've especially seen this in import-sensitive sectors including furnishings, appliances, clothes and toys. Men's shirts and sweaters, for instance, rose 4.9 percent in June alone. When businesses 'eat' the cost, as GM tried to do last quarter, the fallout is no less severe. Diminished earnings mean less capital for investment in better technology or expanded operations, slowing broader economic growth, fewer resources for pay raises or new jobs — hardly the boon for workers that tariff advocates promise. The data confirms this. Nationwide, 14,000 manufacturing jobs disappeared in the past two months, erasing all gains in 2025. In June, real average weekly earnings dropped by 0.4 percent, an annualized loss of nearly 5 percent. Shareholders are also feeling the pinch. Stock valuations track a company's expected future earnings. Since 2012, GM's stock price increased by more than 200 percent. GM's price-to-earnings ratio today stands at 6.83, almost identical to 2012 levels. Stock prices increased alongside earnings. A sustained $5 billion annual hit, wiping out over half of GM's annual net income, could erase more than $20 billion in market capitalization if valuations adjust. With tariffs eroding profits, is it any wonder that GM's stock has slid 8 percent since its post-2024 election peak and now languishes 13 percent off its 2021 highs? This affects millions of middle-class Americans and retirees with pensions and savings invested. More broadly, lower dividends and diminished returns discourage investment, starving companies of the capital needed to expand. The result: slower growth, fewer jobs and weaker wage gains. GM, to its credit, is fighting to offset 30 percent of this burden by boosting U.S. production, cutting costs and increasing domestic content to comply with the USMCA trade agreement's labyrinthine rules. Yet even if successful, the net impact of $2.8 billion to $3.5 billion will devour a significant slice of GM's already thin margins. Profit margins at GM — as in most other sectors — are far less than conventional wisdom. GM's net profit margin over the past decade has averaged less than 5 percent. In other words, a $30,000 vehicle yields less than $1,500 in profit. GM's plans to shift some production to U.S. plants and rework supply chains is a testament to private enterprise's resilience. But make no mistake: These shifts sacrifice efficiency for compliance. Restructuring operations in a free market in pursuit of efficiency yields more profit, consumer benefit and economic growth. Doing so under duress to escape arbitrary tariffs may result in survival, but without these benefits. Resources that could have fueled innovation or lowered prices are now squandered on navigating artificial trade barriers. As an important sidenote, roughly half the tariff's cost stems from GM's South Korean operations, a stark reminder of the folly of taxing trade with allies. Rather than strengthening ties with democratic partners through bold free-trade agreements, these tariffs risk pushing nations like South Korea toward China, America's chief adversary. Far from economic strategy, it is geopolitical shortsightedness. Politicians sometimes prefer tariffs to other forms of taxation because they are less visible than taxes on income or sales. This makes it easier to dodge accountability by blaming 'greedy' corporations. For this reason, Trump called Jeff Bezos to deter Amazon from listing tariff costs on purchases. The White House press secretary labeled this a 'hostile and political act by Amazon.' Regardless, protectionism is not cost-free. Sustained tariffs will raise prices, shrink profits, erode real wages and slow economic growth. GM's quarterly results are a warning.
