4th Circuit Vacates Blockade On Trump’s Elimination Of DEI Grants
A federal appellate panel of the 4th Circuit vacated a lower-court injunction that blocked President Trump’s efforts to end DEI-related programs in federal contracting. In a unanimous decision, the three-judge panel held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Enforcement Threat provision in one of Trump’s orders, and even where they had standing on other provisions, they were unlikely to prevail on the merits.
Chief Circuit Judge Albert Diaz, joined by Judges Pamela Harris and Allison Jones Rushing, wrote that the plaintiffs overstated the enforcement threat Provision and failed to show a concrete injury-in-fact. The court nonetheless found that Trump may set policy priorities and instruct agencies to terminate funding for equity-related projects, and that the case should be reviewed on those terms rather than as a facial challenge to the provision.
Regarding the Certification Provision, the court said the plaintiffs were not entitled to read subtext into the text and offered no fertile ground for a facial challenge to that provision either, noting it concerns how the Administration interprets antidiscrimination law. The ruling vacates the district court’s injunction and remands the case for further proceedings.
The piece also identifies Shawn Fleetwood, the article’s author, as a Federalist staff writer with a background in investigative journalism.
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."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
