4th Circuit Vacates Blockade On Trump’s Elimination Of DEI Grants
A federal appeals court handed President Trump a major victory by vacating a lower-court injunction that blocked his bid to terminate DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) programs tied to federal contracts and grants. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, vacated the Maryland district court’s injunction and sent the case back for further proceedings, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Enforcement Threat Provision and that, they were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their challenges to the other provisions.
Key points from the ruling:
– The court found the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the Enforcement Threat Provision, which critics argued could chill speech and action in support of DEI; the judges said the plaintiffs’ fears were overstated and not sufficiently tethered to concrete injury.
– The panel concluded that, while the plaintiffs could challenge other provisions, they were unlikely to prevail on the merits.
– Regarding the Termination Provision, which requires agencies to terminate equity-related grants or contracts, the court acknowledged the president’s authority to set policy and direct funding decisions, but treated whether the policy is unconstitutionally vague for recipients as the relevant question.
– with respect to the Certification Provision,which requires agencies to certify that they do not run unlawful DEI programs,the court said it was not ripe for a facial challenge and refused to read subtext into the provision’s text.
– The decision vacated the injunction and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.
The article presenting the ruling is by Shawn Fleetwood of The Federalist.
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
