Quick Hits

• A federal district court ruled that the Education Department violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution by improperly issuing guidance that deemed certain DEI programs focused on “race-based preferences” unlawful for schools.
• The court found that the Education Department’s requirement for schools to certify compliance with its interpretations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and recent Supreme Court of the United States rulings constituted a binding agency action that did not undergo necessary public notice and comment procedures. 
• The ruling highlights concerns over what constitutes “illegal DEI,” ultimately blocking the Education Department’s efforts to end diversity efforts in admissions and hiring and restrict classroom discussions on race and diversity.

Background on the Case

On February 14, 2025, the Education Department issued a “Dear Colleague” letter, stating that schools that receive federal funding would lose their federal funding if they continued their unlawful diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. It argued that the race-based DEI programs discriminated against white and Asian students.

On February 28, 2025, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights issued frequently asked questions (FAQs) articulating the “broad implications” of the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which held that certain race-conscious college admissions policies violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The FAQs announced the agency would require states and school districts to certify their compliance with the Education Department’s interpretations of Title VI and the Supreme Court ruling.

The American Federation of Teachers, the American Federation of Teachers–Maryland, the American Sociological Association, and the Eugene, Oregon School District 4J sued, claiming that the Dear Colleague letter and FAQs procedurally and substantively violated the APA and the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment and Fifth Amendment. The Education Department argued that it was merely reminding schools of existing obligations under antidiscrimination laws or clarifying the law. It said the letter and FAQs were not binding, final agency actions.

In April 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland enjoined the federal government from enforcing the Dear Colleague letter, but it did not rule on the legality of the FAQs.

The District Court’s Ruling

In its latest ruling, the federal district court in Maryland found the certification requirement violated the APA because it substantively altered the legal landscape without undergoing the required procedural steps first. The court concluded the certification requirement was a binding, final agency action subject to public notice and comment periods, which did not occur. The court also said the certification requirement was arbitrary and capricious for failing to consider the requirements of the federal Paperwork Reduction Act.

“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,” the court stated.

The court previously blocked the Dear Colleague letter in a preliminary injunction and affirmed that decision largely on the same grounds. The Dear Colleague letter warned schools not to permit classroom speech regarding “systemic and structural racism” and “teach[ing] students that certain racial groups bear unique moral burdens that others do not.” The court reasoned that the restrictions violate educators’ free speech rights under the First Amendment because they regulate classroom speech based on content or viewpoint. The court further found the Dear College letter and FAQs violate the Fifth Amendment because they were too vague about what constituted “illegal DEI.”

“The stringent procedures outlined by the APA are not hollow gestures designed to manufacture the appearance of fair and reasoned decision-making,” the court stated. “They exist to ensure that agencies stay within the bounds of their delegated authority and exercise that authority within the constraints of the law more broadly.”

Next Steps

The opinion from the federal court in Maryland is the latest decision against the agency’s DEI guidance. The decision comes after the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire granted a preliminary injunction against the Dear Colleague letter and the FAQs based on similar rationales.

For the time being, the courts have blocked the federal government from revoking federal funds from schools that do not comport with the agency’s certification requirement. However, the Maryland case could be appealed to a federal circuit court, and it’s unclear whether the stays will remain or not. The Education Department has made clear that challenging what it considers to be illegal DEI will remain a top enforcement priority.

While this case and other similar cases make their way through the courts, K-12 schools, colleges, and universities may wish to review their policies and practices concerning DEI to ensure compliance with all local, state, and federal antidiscrimination laws.