4th Circuit Vacates Blockade On Trump’s Elimination Of DEI Grants
The fourth Circuit Court of Appeals handed President Trump a major victory by vacating a lower-court ruling that had blocked his efforts to end DEI programs in federal contracting. The panel unanimously vacated the injunction previously issued by Maryland District Judge Adam Abelson and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Key points:
– Standing issues: The court found that the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the Enforcement Threat Provision in one of Trump’s orders, though they have standing to challenge the other provisions; the court also said the challengers are unlikely to succeed on the merits.
– Enforcement Threat and policies: While acknowledging that the challengers fear repercussions and would prefer to limit support for DEI, the judges concluded that such concerns overstate the text of the Enforcement Threat Provision. The court emphasized that it does not assess policy soundness, only constitutional or legal issues.
– Termination and Certification provisions: The court noted that the president may set policy priorities and direct funding decisions accordingly, including terminating equity-related grants or contracts to the maximum extent allowed by law. Regarding the Certification Provision (requiring agencies to certify they do not operate unlawful DEI programs), the court ruled that challengers are not entitled to a facial attack on its text; they would need to show a clearer legal injury.
– Outcome and next steps: Abelson’s injunction is vacated, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate ruling.
– Context: The article is by Shawn Fleetwood for The Federalist and discusses the appellate court’s reasoning and the implications for Trump’s DEI-related executive orders.
If you’d like, I can provide a shorter one-sentence summary or a version tailored for a specific audience (legal professionals, general readers, etc.).
A federal appellate court handed President Trump a major victory on Friday by shutting down a lower court blockade on his efforts to eliminate racist DEI programs in federal contracting.
In its unanimous decision, a three-judge panel for the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a preliminary injunction issued by Maryland District Judge Adam Abelson last year. As The Federalist has reported, Abelson is a Biden appointee and Democrat donor who previously worked at a law firm stacked with Democrat partisans and lawyers involved in anti-Trump lawfare.
Abelson’s injunction attempted to prohibit enforcement of provisions included in two executive orders that Trump signed shortly after taking office. Those directives instructed executive agencies to terminate federal contracts and grants for DEI-related programs.
Writing for the three-judge panel, Chief Circuit Judge Albert Diaz, an Obama appointee, ruled that plaintiffs specifically “lack standing to challenge” the “Enforcement Threat Provision” in one of Trump’s contested orders. He and his colleagues furthermore determined that challengers “haven’t sufficiently alleged an injury-in-fact.”
“They claim that they fear retribution by defendants and that they’ll be forced to restrict ‘their speech and conduct in support of diversity, equity, and inclusion’ or face penalties. … But these allegations overstate the Enforcement Threat Provision’s text,” Diaz wrote.
The court ruled that, while plaintiffs had standing to challenge the other provisions in question, they were “unlikely to succeed” on the merits. When addressing plaintiffs’ challenges to the “Termination Provision,” which “requires that all executive agencies terminate equity-related grants or contracts,” Diaz went on to acknowledge that, as president, Trump “may determine his policy priorities and instruct his agents to make funding decisions based on them.” In this instance, he noted, the president “has decided that equity isn’t a priority in his administration and so has directed his subordinates to terminate funding that supports equity-related projects to the maximum extent allowed by law.”
“Whether that’s sound policy or not isn’t our call. We ask only whether the policy is unconstitutionally vague for funding recipients,” Diaz wrote.
Finally, in terms of their challenge against the “certification provision,” which requires agencies to certify they do not operate unlawful DEI programs, Diaz made clear that “plaintiffs are really asking us to … read subtext into the Provision’s text.” They are “challenging … how the Administration and its agency actors interpret antidiscrimination law.”
“Neither is fertile ground for a facial attack against the Certification Provision,” Diaz wrote.
The chief circuit judge was joined in his decision by Judges Pamela Harris and, in part, by Allison Jones Rushing, who were appointed by Obama and Trump, respectively.
The 4th Circuit’s ruling vacates Abelson’s injunction and remands the case back to his court for further proceedings.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."