4th Circuit Vacates Blockade On Trump’s Elimination Of DEI Grants
A federal appellate court in the Fourth Circuit unanimously vacated a lower court’s injunction that blocked President Trump’s efforts to terminate DEI-related programs in federal contracting. The three-judge panel ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Enforcement Threat Provision of one order, while they had standing to challenge other provisions but were unlikely to succeed on the merits. The court vacated the injunction and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.
Key points:
– The panel held that Trump may set policy priorities and direct agencies to terminate funding for equity-related grants or contracts, and that the central question is whether the policy is unconstitutionally vague for funding recipients.
– On the Termination Provision, the court acknowledged Trump’s authority to decide funding priorities and noted the question is whether the provision is unconstitutionally vague for recipients.
– On the Certification Provision, the court said challengers are not entitled to a facial attack, suggesting they would be asking the court to read subtext into the provision’s text.
– The decision was authored by Chief Circuit Judge Albert Diaz and joined in part by Judges Pamela Harris and Allison Jones Rushing, with the case remanded to the district court for further action.
– The ruling reverses the lower court’s injunction and returns the case for additional proceedings.
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
