On August 14, 2025, the US District Court for the District of Maryland vacated the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights’ (OCR) February 14, 2025 Dear Colleague Letter (DCL). Hunton previously provided an overview of the implications of the February 14 DCL for colleges and universities in client alerts published in February and March 2025.

The February 14 DCL, accompanied by related FAQs and a certification requirement targeting K-12 public schools, outlined OCR’s interpretation of Title VI following the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. Specifically, these guidance documents specified when diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives at colleges, universities, and K-12 schools would be deemed by OCR to violate Title VI by discriminating based on race.

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT), along with the American Federation of Teachers-Maryland, the American Sociological Association, and Eugene School District 4J, challenged these actions, citing procedural and substantive violations of the APA and constitutional concerns. In April 2025, the US District Court for the District of Maryland enjoined the DCL. Legal challenges in other courts also occurred, for example: Nat’l Educ. Ass’n v. Dep’t of Educ. (NEA), No. 25-91, 2025 WL 1188160 (D.N.H. Apr. 24, 2025) and Nat’l Ass’n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Dep’t of Educ. (NAACP), No. 25-1120, 2025 WL 1196212 (D.D.C. Apr. 24, 2025).

In the latest decision on August 14, 2025 in AFT v. Dept’ of Educ., No. 25-00628 (D. Md. Aug. 14, 2025), District Court Judge Gallagher ruled that the K-12 certification requirement was a final agency action that violated the APA by altering the legal landscape without first undergoing necessary procedural steps, such as public notice and comment. The court deemed the requirement arbitrary and capricious, noting the failure to consider the federal Paperwork Reduction Act.

Judge Gallagher highlighted that the Department of Education’s guidance documents were not merely reminders to institutions of their antidiscrimination obligations under Title VI. But rather the guidance documents marked a shift in educational regulation under Title VI against colleges, universities, and K-12 public schools and raised concerns about punishing lawful speech. In affirming the preliminary injunction against the DCL, the Court found that the DCL violated First Amendment rights by regulating classroom speech based on content and viewpoint, and Fifth Amendment rights due to its vagueness regarding what constituted “illegal DEI” activities. The Court stated, “The government did not merely remind educators that discrimination is illegal: It initiated a sea change in how the Department of Education regulates educational practices and classroom conduct, causing millions of educators to reasonably fear that their lawful, and even beneficial, speech might cause them or their schools to be punished. The law does not countenance the government's hasty and summary treatment of these significant issues.”

Impact of This Decision

While the current decision blocks the federal government from revoking funds based on these guidance documents, the potential for appeal remains. Further, the Department of Education has previously asserted its enforcement priority of challenging what it considers “illegal DEI” practices by colleges, universities, and K-12 public schools, with focuses on antisemitism, the use of race in admissions and scholarships, and gender identity issues. Hunton expects additional forthcoming guidance from the Department of Education and the Department of Justice on their interpretations of Title VI.

As a result, educational institutions should continue to closely monitor updates from the Department of Education and Department of Justice, including recent civil rights enforcement actions and resolution agreements. In addition, schools should continue reviewing their DEI-related policies and practices to ensure compliance with local, state, and federal antidiscrimination laws.