The federalistThe Western Journal

4th Circuit Vacates Blockade On Trump’s Elimination Of DEI Grants

Teh Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a lower-court injunction that blocked President Trump’s efforts to end DEI-related programs in federal contracting, and sent the case back for further proceedings.The unanimous decision cleared the way for Trump’s executive orders to take effect by terminating or restricting DEI funding and programs,at least as far as the appellate panel’s ruling allows.

Key points:

– The court found that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Enforcement Threat Provision and, while they had standing to challenge othre provisions, they were unlikely to succeed on the merits.

– The court held that the president may set policy priorities and direct funding decisions accordingly, and that the issues raised were more about policy interpretation than a constitutional violation.

– The decision vacates the district court’s injunction against the Termination Provision and Certification Provision,and remands the case for further proceedings in the district court.

– The ruling is framed as a procedural victory for Trump, with the panel emphasizing that the court’s role is not to second-guess policy choices regarding DEI funding.

the Fourth Circuit’s action unblocked the president’s plan to end certain DEI-related federal contracts and grants and returned the case to the district court for additional handling.


Share

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

Related Articles

Back to top button
Close

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker