Thursday U.S. District Court Judge Landya McCafferty blocked the Trump administration’s anti-DEI directive to schools. The block applies only to public schools that work with the plaintiffs, the National Education Association, their New Hampshire affiliate, and the Center for Black Educator Development. Here’s what went into the ruling.
The administration policy opposing diversity, equity and inclusion policies was rolled out starting with a “Dear Colleague” letter on February 14, the press release announcing their “End DEI” portal on February 27, and an April 3rd message strongly suggesting that states and local school districts sign a pledge that they had a “legal obligation” to follow the administration’s interpretation of Title VI and linking that compliance to continue receiving federal funding.
April 24 marked the due date for districts and states to sign. By that date, Matt Zalaznick reported for District Administration that many states, including Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland and New Hampshire had complied, while other states like Arizona were threatening individual districts that would not sign with a loss of funding. Education Week reported that 19 states said they would not sign.
McCafferty’s 82-page ruling opens with a pair of quotes from earlier cases to indicate the stakes of this case.
Ours is a nation “deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned.” Indeed, “[t]
he Nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to [a] robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth out of a multitude of tongues, [rather] than through any kind of authoritative selection.”
McCafferty is quite clear on the chilling nature of the administration actions.
For many schools, loss of federal funding would be crippling. It is predictable—if not obvious— that such schools will eliminate all vestiges of DEI to avoid even the possibility of funding termination. Although the 2025 Letter does not make clear what exactly it prohibits, it makes at least one thing clear: schools should not come close to anything that could be considered “DEI,” lest they be deemed to have guessed wrong in violation of the 2025 Letter’s vague and expansive prohibitions.
She cites numerous examples of exactly that resultant chilling effect. The administration argues that the letter does not prohibit teachers from teaching certain books or the history of race, racism, gender, or other topics, but the court holds that assurance up against the language of the End DEI portal with its encouragement to parents to “share the receipts of the betrayal that has happened in our public schools.”
McCafferty rules that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their case, due to several factors.
First, vagueness. The letter is clear on consequences (“face potential loss of federal funding”) but not on the actual behaviors being prohibited. McCafferty finds the administration definition of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” to be “ocean-wide” and its examples are far removed from the dictionary or generally understood meanings of the words. She cites several teachers who talk about how the vagueness leaves them uncertain whether or not they may teach material such as historical imperialism or the themes in “Heart of Darkness.”
The administration argues that it is simply directing schools not to use DEI programs as cover to engage in racial harassment. Yet, McCafferty points out, they offer no explanation how DEI could be used in such a way.
[T]he 2025 Letter does not define this term, but on its face it concerns a consciousness or awareness of one’s race or others’ races. How is it possible to engage in DEI programming that ignores race? The 2025 Letter is silent.
Nor does the administration’s website say it intends to end that “cover” version of DEI, but aims to “End DEI,” not particular uses or versions of it. An FAQ doesn’t help, “clarifying” by the use of terms like “veil discrimination policies” and “social-emotional learning”– terms that serve a special coded understanding for conservative anti-DEI activists, but not for those who read them in simple plain English.
McCafferty rules that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on First Amendment grounds, noting that the letter “targets speech based on viewpoint.”
A professor runs afoul of the 2025 Letter if she expresses the view in her teaching that structural racism exists in America, but does not do so if she denies structural racism’s existence. That is textbook viewpoint discrimination.
McCafferty also sees that this is an attempt to coerce third parties to punish or suppress disfavored speech on their behalf by getting state and district officials to force teachers to stop delivering the disfavored lessons. But what is illegal directly is illegal indirectly.
McCafferty further sees the plaintiffs winning on the grounds of overstepping authority by the Trump administration. By law, the Department of Education is expressly forbidden “to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system.” By prohibiting teaching of certain concepts, the anti-DEI initiative oversteps the limits of department powers.
Nor does McCafferty think the Department can hide behind calling its directive an interpretation of the law; the letter, she writes, is a legislative rule, and the obligations imposed are new.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure requires the plaintiff in a case like this to post a bond against damage that the defendants may suffer if they turn out to have been wrongfully enjoined. McCafferty orders a bond of $50.
The Trump administration’s anti-DEI initiative has depended on language that is plain enough on its face, but is meant to convey other layers of meaning, particularly to those involved in the culture wars. That has allowed the effect of the government simultaneously saying “Don’t teach about racial issues” and “Of course you can teach about racial issues,” leaving educators to try to figure out where the lines are truly drawn in a game with very high professional stakes. For the moment, the court has told the Department of Education to take a step back.
The Department has not yet responded to requests for comment.