by Daniel Johnson
March 16, 2025
The order gives the Trump administration leeway to enforce the policy while litigation of the policy continues.
A three-judge appeals court allowed Donald Trump’s anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion policies to be enforced on March 14, however, that ruling is not final, it just gives the administration leeway to enforce the policy while litigation of the policy continues.
According to Politico, the judges lifted the injunction issued by a lower federal court in February, and in the three judges’ opinions which explained their votes, the judges indicated that the administration be allowed to prove that it will respect First Amendment rights and anti-discrimination laws.
This, despite two of the judges raising concerns that the Trump administration’s orders could potentially violate the Constitution if federal officials enforce them too zealously, due to the order’s narrow scope of enforcement.
Judge Pamela Harris, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, wrote in her opinion that the Trump orders are not intended to establish that DEI is illegal in a broad context.
“The challenged Executive Orders, on their face, are of distinctly limited scope,” Harris wrote. “The Executive Orders do not purport to establish the illegality of all efforts to advance diversity, equity or inclusion, and they should not be so understood.”
Harris continued, offering a caveat, “Agency enforcement actions that go beyond the Orders’ narrow scope may well raise serious First Amendment and Due Process concerns.”
Chief Judge Albert Diaz, an appointee of President Barack Obama, also argued in his opinion that aggressive implementation of the executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion in the federal government could present problems and also issued a defense of DEI.
“I too reserve judgment on how the administration enforces these executive orders,” Diaz wrote. “It’s unclear what types of programs — formal or informal — the administration seeks to eliminate.”
Diaz continued, “When this country embraces true diversity, it acknowledges and respects the social identity of its people. When it fosters true equity, it opens opportunities and ensures a level playing field for all. And when its policies are truly inclusive, it creates an environment and culture where everyone is respected and valued. What could be more American than that? A country does itself no favors by scrubbing the shameful moments of its past.”
In contrast to the other two judges, judge Allison Rushing, a Trump appointee, argued that the other judges’ defenses of DEI ran counter to their roles as judges.
“Any individual judge’s view on whether certain Executive action is good policy is not only irrelevant to fulfilling our duty to adjudicate cases and controversies according to the law, it is an impermissible consideration,” Rushing wrote in her opinion. “A judge’s opinion that DEI programs ‘deserve praise, not opprobrium’ should play absolutely no part in deciding this case.”
RELATED CONTENT: Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Portions Of Trump’s Anti-DEI Executive Orders
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings