4th Circuit Vacates Blockade On Trump’s Elimination Of DEI Grants
A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously vacated a lower court’s injunction that blocked President Trump’s efforts to end DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) programs in federal contracting. The decision remands the case back to the district court for further proceedings.
Key points:
– The court held that the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the Enforcement Threat Provision in one of Trump’s executive orders, finding they did not show an actual injury-in-fact.
– The panel said plaintiffs do have standing to challenge other provisions, but they are unlikely to succeed on the merits of those challenges.
– Specifically, the court acknowledged that the termination Provision—requiring agencies to terminate funding for equity-related programs—reflects a presidential policy choice, and the court’s role is not to substitute its policy judgment for the president’s.
– The Certification Provision,which requires agencies to certify they do not operate unlawful DEI programs,was found not to support a facial attack based on the provision’s text; the court cautioned against reading subtext into the text.
– The ruling vacates the lower court’s injunction and remands the case for further proceedings.
– The opinion was authored by Chief Circuit Judge Albert Diaz and joined in part by Judges Pamela Harris and Allison jones Rushing.
Background: The case involves a Maryland district judge’s injunction blocking parts of Trump’s executive orders aimed at terminating federal contracts and grants tied to DEI programs. The Fourth Circuit’s decision centers on standing and the scope of review for policy-laden executive actions.
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
