Federal judges on Thursday dealt three separate blows to the Education Department’s plans to enforce sweeping bans on diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in the nation’s K-12 schools, in decisions that declare Trump administration policies — or the way they were enacted — likely violate the law.
The rulings stem from lawsuits brought by the country’s largest teacher unions and civil rights groups in separate jurisdictions. But each court decision carries national implications that temporarily block the administration from carrying out this month’s directive that school systems comply with its interpretation of federal anti-discrimination law or risk sanctions.
Despite the impact of each court ruling, states and schools may still face challenges to determine how the decisions apply locally — and whether educational institutions should delay or reverse policies they may already have implemented in response to the Trump administration’s demands.
A ruling in favor of a preliminary injunction requested by the National Education Association from Landya McCafferty, a New Hampshire federal judge appointed by former President Barack Obama, stopped short of issuing a nationwide order that halts the Education Department from enforcing its orders for schools.
But McCafferty’s ruling does apply to entities receiving federal funding that employ or contract with the NEA or its members — a key nuance that gives her decision considerable effect across much of the country where the largest U.S. labor union has a presence.
The second court ruling from Stephanie Gallagher, a Maryland judge appointed by President Donald Trump, in a case brought by organizations including the American Federation of Teachers, delayed the enactment of a Feb. 14 department letter that asserts federal law prohibits schools from using race in decisions pertaining to all aspects of education.
“This Court takes no view as to whether the policies at issue here are good or bad, prudent or foolish, fair or unfair,” Gallagher wrote in her decision.
“But this Court is constitutionally required to closely scrutinize whether the government went about creating and implementing them in the manner the law requires,” she added. “The government did not.”
A third ruling issued in the District of Columbia by Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, further blocked the department from demanding schools certify their compliance with the Trump administration. The government’s threats, the judge said, likely violate the Constitution.
The Education Department did not respond to a request for comment.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon’s agency this month directed state school systems to quickly sign onto a Trump administration interpretation of federal anti-discrimination law or risk potential lawsuits, civil penalties and the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds. The agency later agreed to delay enforcing its orders until today’s hearing, as part of a temporary agreement in the New Hampshire case.
The NAACP filed a lawsuit to challenge that directive in mid-April, and won a swift ruling that granted part of its request for a preliminary injunction after today’s hearing in the District of Columbia, according to court records.
“Our fight is far from over, but today’s decision is a victory for Black and Brown students across the country, whose right to an equal education has been directly threatened by this Administration’s corrosive actions and misinterpretations of civil rights law,” NAACP CEO Derrick Johnson said in a statement.
The National Education Association, its New Hampshire affiliate and civil rights organizations sued the department in federal court last month to challenge agency guidance that directed schools to end their diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The American Federation of Teachers joined the American Sociological Association and an Oregon school district in its lawsuit, in conjunction with the Democracy Forward legal services organization.
“Today’s ruling allows educators and schools to continue to be guided by what’s best for students, not by the threat of illegal restrictions and punishment,” NEA President Becky Pringle said in a statement on the New Hampshire case.
“The court agreed that this vague and clearly unconstitutional requirement is a grave attack on students, our profession, honest history, and knowledge itself,” American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said of the Maryland case.
Thursday’s rulings are not final decisions on the merits of the lawsuits, though they block the department from enforcing its orders while each case awaits further rulings. Each ruling, though, said each lawsuit was likely to succeed on at least some of their respective claims.
The department’s “Dear Colleague” letter from February that asserts federal law prohibits schools from using race in decisions pertaining to all aspects of education is “unconstitutionally vague,” McCafferty’s 82-page ruling said, adding that the letter likely exceeds the department’s statutory authority.
That letter and a department “End DEI” federal tip line “raise the specter of a public ‘witch hunt’ that will sow fear and doubt among teachers lest they be publicly branded as peddlers of ‘divisive ideologies’ based on the Department’s — or even private parties’ — subjective assessments,” the New Hampshire judge said.
“While it may be true that a line must be drawn somewhere between the Department’s lawful prerogative to enforce anti-discrimination law and its prohibition from controlling curriculum, the Letter and its associated documents do not toe that line,” McCafferty wrote.