Judge Issues Partial Injunction Against Trump’s DEI Rules for Schools
A federal judge has placed a partial injunction on the Trump administration’s attempts to limit schools and universities from enacting policies or curricula promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), finding that an executive order from President Donald Trump and subsequent actions from the Department of Education (DOE) were too vague to enforce.
U.S. District Judge Landya McCafferty, who is based in New Hampshire, did not place a nationwide injunction on the enforcement of the Trump administration’s policies but rather issued an injunction that will affect only her jurisdiction. The suit was brought forward by the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Trump’s executive order, issued in March, did not outright stipulate that DEI curricula would no longer be allowed, but rather that schools engaging students in such material would lose their federal funding.
The Secretary of Education shall ensure that the allocation of any Federal Department of Education funds is subject to rigorous compliance with Federal law and Administration policy, including the requirement that any program or activity receiving Federal assistance terminate illegal discrimination obscured under the label “diversity, equity, and inclusion” or similar terms and programs promoting gender ideology.
The department followed that order with a letter to U.S. states demanding that schools under their purview end “illegal DEI practices” — an “unconstitutionally vague” decree, according to McCafferty’s ruling.
Beginning her opinion by citing prior Supreme Court caselaw, McCafferty recognized in the first sentence of her ruling that the U.S. “is a nation ‘deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned.’” She also noted, within that same paragraph, that the executive branch, through the order and DOE actions afterward, “threatens to erode” foundational principles protecting the free exchange of ideas and the promotion of diverse ideas that distinguishes the U.S. from “totalitarian regimes.”
Indeed, the vagueness of the order could cause educators across the country to run afoul of other laws, McCafferty wrote. In New Hampshire, this could include violating rules for teachers that require creating environments where “students develop and support critical insights in response to literature,” discussion of literature “through various critical lenses,” and explaining how texts “present information, ideas and feelings in a range of social contexts.”
“Due to the vague and confusing prohibitions set forth in the 2025 Letter [from the DOE], NEA is impaired in its ability to counsel members on steps they must take to comply with federal educational requirements,” McCafferty ruled.
The Trump administration is likely to appeal the decision to the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals. From there, the case could be appealed by either side, depending on the outcome, and potentially heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
NEA President Becky Pringle heralded the ruling.
“Across the country educators do everything in their power to support every student, ensuring each feels safe, seen, and is prepared for the future. Today’s ruling allows educators and schools to continue to be guided by what’s best for students, not by the threat of illegal restrictions and punishment,” Pringle said.
“Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Linda McMahon are using politically motivated attacks and harmful and vague directives to stifle speech and erase critical lessons to attack public education, as they work to dismantle public schools,” Pringle added. “This is why educators, parents, and community leaders are organizing, mobilizing, and using every tool available to protect our students and their futures.”