US appeals court rejects challenge to Trump's efforts to ban DEI

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Reuters

Feb 6 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Friday rejected a challenge to a move by President Donald Trump's administration to ban diversity, equity and inclusion programs at federal agencies and businesses with government contracts. A three-judge panel of the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an injunction that would have blocked Trump's administration from implementing executive orders he signed shortly after taking office last year aimed at eliminating DEI programming in the government and private sector.

The court in March 2025 at the administration's urging put on hold that preliminary injunction, which had been issued by Baltimore-based U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson, while it weighed the government's appeal. Democracy Forward, a liberal legal group that represented the plaintiffs, said it is reviewing the ruling. The White House had no immediate comment. Abelson's ruling came in a lawsuit by the city of Baltimore, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education and the American Association of University Professors.

They challenged provisions of Trump's executive orders that directed federal agencies to eliminate DEI programs, certify government contractors and grant recipients do not operate them, and work with the Justice Department to take measures to deter DEI programs and investigate companies with such policies.

Abelson had concluded Trump's directives likely violate the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment free speech protections and impose vague standards that fail to comply with the Fifth Amendment's due process requirements. But U.S. Circuit Judge Albert Diaz, writing for Friday's panel, said Trump's directives could not be challenged head-on, saying they could instead be challenged based on how agencies apply them to specific grant recipients.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-appeals-court-rejects-challenge-trumps-efforts-ban-dei-2026-02-06/

---

Link to ORDER (PDF) - https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zgpoyobxzpd/02062026dei.pdf

2 Obama judges (including the Chief Judge of that court who wrote the majority opinion), and a 45 judge.

Don't understand how you can't directly challenge the E.O. (since it has been done before) but it looks like they want them to do agency by agency suits and the case was sent back to the lower court.

REFERENCES

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143388722
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143612507
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143401684
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143417645
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143418228
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143451660

[lamp_shade]

1. SHITTTT

[angrychair]

2. Always gets away with it

Either by floundering courts that openly appear to be afraid of him or his administration just ignores court rulings outright.

We are cooked as a nation.

[onenote]

3. What evidence do you have that the two Obama judges are "afraid" of Trump?

Diaz authored the opinion upholding the convictions of the Charlottesville Unite the Right Rally. And Harris was the deciding vote in the case that held a West Virginia anti-trans law was unconstitutional -- a ruling that the current Supreme Court appears prepared to reverse.

This decision was unanimous becuase the plaintiffs overreached in claiming "facial" unconstitutionality -- a hard case to make.

[angrychair]

4. Same reason it always was

Law is an interesting thing. The more money you have in your tin and the less pigment you have in your skin the more likely you are to win. Justice is not blind and never was.

It is empirically clear that this attack on DEI is racist to the bone but by forcing organizations or others to fight every single agency action on a grant is an impossible hill to climb. No one has that kind of money not to mention each case could take years to get all the way through the courts to an actual final decision. By that time it won't even matter because if a project isn't funded the organization can't spend years fighting that in court and just has to move on. Their ruling is very literally meant to protect this administration.