The education department will not be able to enforce its guidance, which announced all race-based programs and illegal activities after two court orders Thursday.
Federal judges in New Hampshire and Maryland found in two separate lawsuits that the plaintiff might succeed in proving that the February 14 dear colleague letter violated the procedure standards and the First Amendment. Before orders, universities and K-12 schools that failed to comply with this letter risked federal funding.
“Although the letters of 2025 have not clearly said anything, at least one thing to be clear: schools should not approach anything that can be considered ‘dei’, lest they be considered guessing wrong,” the New Hampshire judge wrote. And because the loss of federal grants could weaken the institution, “this is foreseeable (if not obvious) [they] All remains of DEI will be eliminated to avoid the possibility of termination of funds,” whether it is an example of excessive extension of executives.
The initial injunction of the New Hampshire court issued first was limited to institutions of the Plaintiffs Association members, leaving many universities and universities vulnerable. But just a few hours later, a Maryland judge brought her opinion that prevented the letter from taking effect until the case was resolved, which was actually a nationwide ban.
However, these bans did not stop all Trump’s attacks on DEI. Dear colleague letter is only one aspect of the president’s multiple strategies.
In another NAACP lawsuit challenging the department’s guidance and actions related to DEI, the District of Columbia judge prevented the department from asking K-12 schools to prove they do not have any DEI programs. Thursday, April 24, is the deadline to be followed. The department threatens to withhold federal funds from K-12 schools that do not meet the certification requirements. The judge ruled that the plaintiff is likely to succeed “because of the certification requirements for serious financial conditions and other fines for inadequate conduct.”
Since its release, the Dear Colleagues Letter has introduced the commotion to K-12 and higher education advocates across the country as lawyers and others see the document as a classic example of abuse of presidential power.
The Ministry of Education said in its guidance that the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling for fair admissions for students with racial awareness also makes any race-based programs, resources and financial aid illegal. The department gives the university two weeks to comply. The Civil Rights Office conducted dozens of investigations into the university accusing them of violating the guidance in the letter in the weeks after the letter took effect.
In order to comply with this letter, some universities and universities began to retract, or at least rebrand it, namely their DEI activities, resources and scholarships. Some institutions, including the University of Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and the University of Alaska, responded to their websites such as “diversity” and “inclusion.” Others, including Ohio State, closed the DEI office and completely changed the eligibility requirements for certain programs. (These changes were made despite some academic association recommendations to avoid preemptive compliance.)
On March 3, the Ministry of Education released a FAQ that answered and clarified some bold commands of letters. But, despite this, the higher education team is moving forward, and by the end of this week, both lawsuits have been filed.
One in New Hampshire is led by the National Association of Education, the largest K-12 union in the United States, while the other in Maryland is the American Federation of Teachers, which includes many higher education colleges.
The union believes that the letter and its threat to cut federal funds violate the First and Fifth Amendments, using vague language beyond the statutory authorities of the Ministry of Education. They also claim that scrubbing DEI programs and potential funding cuts will undermine the capacity of schools and universities as socio-economic mobility tools.
“This letter was an illegal attempt by the department, imposing a special view of the government on how schools should work, just like the law. But that’s not the case.” “Despite the department’s view on the matter, the requirements of Title VI have not changed, nor the meaning of the SFFA decision.” (The Civil Rights Act Chapter VI prohibits discrimination based on race, color or nationality.)
At a recent hearing in the Maryland case, the Department of Education believes its letter only reminds people that existing civil rights laws protect white children from discrimination Maryland is important Report.
“Because they taught a book, they were unlikely to go to school,” said U.S. Attorney Abhishek Kambli. “All this letter does is just clarify what the existing obligations of Title VI are.” [of the Civil Rights Act]. ”
But a judge in Maryland didn’t buy the argument, and she supported the plaintiffs just as much as a New Hampshire judge.
The New Hampshire judge said the policies outlined in the letter failed to properly define DEI and thus threatened to erode the “basic principles” of freedom of speech and academic freedom.
On the other hand, a Maryland judge tried her case from the perspective of “substantiveness and procedural legality”, saying that the Trump administration’s letter also failed to grasp it.
“The plaintiffs show that the government may not follow the procedures it should have and that these failures have tangible and specific damage to the plaintiff,” Gallagher wrote. “This situation in particular emphasizes why even heavy procedures are so important.”
Although the orders are only temporary and the lawsuit will continue, education stakeholders see it as a victory.
“The nationwide ban will be released in classrooms and learning communities across the country, which will pause at least part of the chaos, which will provide our clients with time to clearly demonstrate in court how these public education attacks are unconstitutional and should be stopped permanently,” said Skye Perryman, a Democratic president who is moving forward, who represents Mary of Pro Bono Broning.
AFT President Randi Weingarten added in a statement: “The court agreed that this ambiguity and unconstitutional requirement is a serious attack on students, our profession, honest history and knowledge itself.”
For the NEA, the New Hampshire decision was a “win for students, parents and educators,” which prevented “unprecedented and illegal” efforts to control American schools.
“Educators across the country are doing their best to support every student, ensuring that every student feels safe, sees and prepares for the future,” NEA President Becky Pringle said in a press release. “Today’s ruling allows educators and schools to continue to be under the best guidance for students, rather than being threatened by illegal restrictions and punishments.”
The Ministry of Education did not respond Internal Advanced EDRequest a comment before publishing this story.
