While the Trump administration appeals a recent federal court ruling that blocked enforcement of key parts of two executive orders (EO) to restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and initiatives, the administration faces additional legal challenges alleging the DEI executive orders and an order claiming that there are only two sexes are constitutional.

The legal challenges to the EOs raise constitutional and other legal grounds to enjoin and limit the EOs and other executive actions, which have caused significant compliance concerns for federal contractors, federal money recipients and private sector employers.

Quick Hits

• The Trump administration is appealing a preliminary injunction that blocks key components of two executive orders aimed at restricting DEI programs.
• The administration also faces at least three additional recently filed lawsuits from civil rights and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups challenging the constitutionality of these orders.
• The lawsuits argue that the executive orders are unconstitutionally vague, violate the First Amendment by chilling free speech, and exceed the president’s authority, among other grounds, potentially impacting federal agencies, federal contractors, federal money recipients, and private-sector employers.
• Despite the injunction, the executive orders have already caused significant disruptions to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) initiatives, prompting some federal agencies to revise guidance to comply with the administration’s directives.

On February 24, 2025, the Trump administration filed a notice of appeal to challenge the February 21 preliminary injunction ruling holding key portions of the EOs are likely unconstitutionally vague and violate the First Amendment. The administration also filed a motion to stay the injunction’s enforcement pending the appeal.

Specifically, the preliminary injunction ruling blocked enforcement of provisions requiring federal agencies to terminate “equity-related grants or contracts,” requiring federal contractors to certify under potential False Claims Act (FCA) liability that they do not operate unlawful DEI programs and to certify they do not engage in unlawful discrimination, and directing the attorney general to target DEI programs in the private sector.

The ruling came in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in Maryland on February 3 by a coalition of DEI advocates—the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, and the mayor and city council of Baltimore.

The groups targeted two of President Donald Trump’s EOs signed in his first days in office on January 20 and 21, 2025—EO 14151, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” and EO 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.”

New Challenges

Many legal challenges have been made to Trump’s EOs. While the Trump administration seeks to appeal the preliminary injunction in the Maryland lawsuit, it faces at least three more legal challenges to the DEI orders.

• On February 26, 2025, the nonprofit group Chicago Women in Trades filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
• On February 20, 2025, a group of LGBTQ+ rights groups and AIDS activists represented by Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. filed a similar challenge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
• On February 19, 2025, civil rights groups—the National Urban League (NUL), the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA), and the AIDS Foundation of Chicago (AFC)—filed a lawsuit on February 19, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Like the Maryland case, the new suits name President Trump and several federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCC), and the U.S. Department of Justice, among others. They seek injunctions to block the EOs and force agencies to reverse their actions to implement the orders.

Both the Lambda Legal and the National Urban League lawsuits additionally target the president’s January 20, 2025, EO 14168, “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which outlined the federal government’s new policy to only “recognize two sexes, male and female.”

The lawsuits raise similar claims:

• Unconstitutionally Vague—The suits alleged that the EOs contain vague and undefined language that fails to provide clear guidance on prohibited DEI or diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) activities.
• First Amendment—The suits alleged that the EOs are designed to chill speech disfavored by the administration, resulting in viewpoint discrimination prohibited by the First Amendment. They allege the EOs put organizations in a position where they must decide whether to continue their missions or lose federal funding.
• Due Process—The suits further alleged that the executive orders violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because they are impermissibly vague, suppress free speech, and are discriminatory against protected groups.
• Ultra Vires—The suits also alleged that the EOs exceeded the president’s authority and usurped legislative functions.

Impact on DEI Programs

Despite the preliminary injunction, President Trump’s EOs have already significantly disrupted lawful DEIA with both federal contractors/grant recipients and the private sector. Even though enjoined, the EOs continue to create concerns for companies that they could be targeted for programs or initiatives that could arguably be classified as “illegal” DEIA despite that term being undefined in the EOs.

Federal agencies have begun rescinding or revising guidance to align with the president’s EOs. For instance, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has rolled back much of the EEOC’s prior guidance related to issues of gender identity discrimination and harassment against LGBTQ+ individuals.

Notably, the recent injunction does not block portions of the EOs that directed the attorney general to prepare reports and pursue enforcement actions to stop DEIA programs and initiatives in the private sector. U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi has already said the Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division “will investigate, eliminate, and penalize illegal DEI and DEIA” programs in the private sector and educational institutions that receive federal funds.”

Next Steps

The outcome of these cases could have far-reaching implications for DEIA programs and the ongoing civil rights issues in the United States. As the cases progress, employers may want to monitor how the courts address the complex constitutional and administrative law issues in these lawsuits.