Higher education groups and Baltimore officials had argued the executive orders exceeded presidential powers.
A federal appeals court on Feb. 6 turned away a challenge to President Donald Trump’s executive orders ending so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in the federal government.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned a preliminary injunction issued in February 2025 by U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson in Maryland that partly blocked the executive orders.
Abelson found the executive orders likely violated the U.S. Constitution, including the free speech protections of the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment’s due process requirements, and issued a nationwide injunction forbidding the Trump administration from ending or modifying DEI-related federal contracts and grants.
The judge wrote that because the executive orders under challenge were vague, federal contractors and recipients of grants have “no reasonable way to know what, if anything, they can do to bring their grants into compliance.”
The lawsuit was brought by the plaintiffs, National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, American Association of University Professors, and the mayor and city council of Baltimore, Maryland.
The federal government appealed Abelson’s decision, and in March 2025, the Fourth Circuit temporarily blocked the district court’s injunction.
In the new ruling, Circuit Judge Albert Diaz wrote that the president “may determine his policy priorities and instruct his agents to make funding decisions based on them.”
Trump has decided that “equity isn’t a priority in his administration and so has directed his subordinates to terminate funding that supports equity-related projects to the maximum extent allowed by law.”
“Whether that’s sound policy or not isn’t our call,” he said. “We ask only whether the policy is unconstitutionally vague for funding recipients.”
Diaz said the plaintiffs may not challenge Trump’s executive orders head-on, but instead could challenge how agencies apply the orders to particular grant recipients.
At the same time, Diaz criticized the Trump administration’s stance on DEI.
In a separate concurring opinion, the judge said he reached his conclusions in the case “reluctantly.”
The evidence suggested “a more sinister story: important programs terminated by keyword; valuable grants gutted in the dark; worthy efforts to uplift and empower denigrated in social media posts.”
