BALTIMORE — A federal judge on Friday ruled in favor of Baltimore City challenging President Donald Trump's executive orders ending federal grants to organizations involved in Diversity, Equity and Inclusion efforts.
The City argued Trump's orders violate federal anti-discrimination laws, while the Trump Administration says it does the complete opposite.
Maryland U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, concluded Trump's orders are too vague and therefore "chill speech."
Here is a synopsis of Trump's order in question, called “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.”
Roughly 60 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, critical and influential institutions of American society, including the Federal Government, major corporations, financial institutions, the medical industry, large commercial airlines, law enforcement agencies, and institutions of higher education have adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) or “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) that can violate the civil-rights laws of this Nation.
Illegal DEI and DEIA policies not only violate the text and spirit of our longstanding Federal civil-rights laws, they also undermine our national unity, as they deny, discredit, and undermine the traditional American values of hard work, excellence, and individual achievement in favor of an unlawful, corrosive, and pernicious identity-based spoils system. Hardworking Americans who deserve a shot at the American Dream should not be stigmatized, demeaned, or shut out of opportunities because of their race or sex.
These illegal DEI and DEIA policies also threaten the safety of American men, women, and children across the Nation by diminishing the importance of individual merit, aptitude, hard work, and determination when selecting people for jobs and services in key sectors of American society, including all levels of government, and the medical, aviation, and law-enforcement communities. Yet in case after tragic case, the American people have witnessed first-hand the disastrous consequences of illegal, pernicious discrimination that has prioritized how people were born instead of what they were capable of doing.
The Federal Government is charged with enforcing our civil-rights laws. The purpose of this order is to ensure that it does so by ending illegal preferences and discrimination.
This is how Abelson interpreted the order, as reasoning for issuing an injunction.
The possibilities are almost endless, and many are pernicious.
If an elementary school receives Department of Education funding for technology access, and a teacher uses a computer to teach the history of Jim Crow laws, does that risk the grant being deemed “equity-related” and the school being stripped of funding?
If a road construction grant is used to fill potholes in a low-income neighborhood instead of a wealthy neighborhood, does that render it “equity-related”?
If a university grant helps fund the salary of a staff person who then helps teach college students about sexual harassment and the language of consent, would the funding for that person’s salary be stripped as “equity-related”?
If a business with a grant from the Small Business Administration conducts a recruiting session at a historically Black college or university, could the business be stripped of the grant on that basis?
Government lawyers defended Trump's orders, stating its only intention is to enforce existing federal anti-discrimination law.
“Plaintiffs have no First Amendment right to engage in ‘illegal discrimination," the government told the judge.
Although Trump critics define DEI differently, allies often compare it to Affirmative Action when linked to higher education and hiring practices.
In June 2023 the U.S. Supreme Court overturned longstanding Affirmative Action laws considering race or ethnicity as part of the college admissions process. Abelson even mentions the case in his ruling.
RELATED: Baltimore City sues Trump Administration over executive orders targeting DEI
Despite acknowledging and quoting prior case law stating “[W]hen individuals enter into government employment or contracts, they accept certain restrictions on their freedom as part of the deal,” and “the First Amendment does not create property or tenure rights, and does not guarantee absolute freedom of speech,” Abelson still sided with the City, prohibiting anyone other than Trump himself from carrying out a large portion of the executive orders including:
- Blocking, pausing, freezing, canceling, or terminating an organization's federal awards, contracts, or obligations based on DEI policies.
- Requiring grant recipients to certify non-involvement in organizational DEI.
- Risking civil action against grant recipients found to be non-compliant.
Abelson did, however, leave some parts of Trump's order in place.
"Ordering the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to “[e]xcise references to DEI and DEIA principles” from federal acquisition and contracting procedures, are not at issue here," wrote Abelson. "For prudential and separation-of-powers reasons, the Court will not enjoin the Attorney General from preparing the report pursuant to the J21 Order, or engaging in investigation."
The 63 page ruling prompted swift push back from Stephen Miller, Trump's Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security.
"A federal judge just nullified the Civil Rights Act and the 14th amendment, saying the government MUST use DEI to illegally punish Americans based solely on their race and skin color," Miller wrote on X (formerly Twitter. "DEI is illegal race-based discrimination in violation of the federal Civil Rights Act. A judge cannot nullify the Civil Rights Acts and order the government to award federal taxpayer dollars to organizations that discriminate based on race."
Republican Congressman Eli Crane, of Arizona, responded tweeting "Another judge for impeachment consideration?"
Trump's Department of Government Efficiency leader, and X owner, Elon Musk, replied to Crane with one word; "Impeach."
Impeach! https://t.co/QUlAGKsMH5
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 22, 2025
Margot Cleveland, a former law professor at Notre Dame, and current attorney for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, called Abelson's injunction "crazy!"
"It prohibits federal agencies from canceling grants it would have the right to cancel under the terms of the grants and without violation of law because they are canceling them based on direction given by the executive," Cleveland said on X.
4/ This injunction is CRAZY! It prohibits federal agencies from cancelling grants it would have the right to cancel under the terms of the grants and without violation of law because they are canceling them based on direction given by the EXECUTIVE.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 22, 2025
Many legal observers like Cleveland argue federal grants are discretionary, giving the executive branch broad authority to set funding priorities.
The ruling is the latest instance of a federal district level judge issuing an injunction halting the Commander in Chief's nationwide agenda.
Such decisions have sparked questions of whether Trump will comply, considering courts have no real enforcement mechanism against a sitting President with sweeping immunity and control of the DOJ, whose ultimate job it is to see the judge's orders are implemented.
MORE: Vance and Musk openly question the authority of the courts as Trump's agenda faces legal pushback
For his part, Trump has said on multiple occasions in the past, that he would comply, and follow the appeals process.
Nonetheless, Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott said the City would continue fighting the administration's attempts to demolish DEI, calling it "un-American."
More: Mayor Scott rips Trump's executive orders targeting DEI
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts were never about providing opportunities to unqualified individuals but about ensuring that qualified individuals from diverse backgrounds were not passed over for those less qualified who met the status quo.
President Trump's executive orders are not only unconstitutional but also clearly oppose our country's core values. His relentless attacks on DEI initiatives seek to dismantle the very principles that make our nation strong. We are a nation built on diversity, unity, and the belief that everyone deserves a fair chance.
