National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education; American Association of University Professors; Restaurant Opportunities Centers United; Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland; Plaintiffs v. Donald J. Trump
February 3, 2025A diverse coalition has filed a federal complaint to block President Trump’s executive orders (collectively the “Anti-DEIA Executive Orders”)
A diverse coalition representing the nation’s leading academics and higher education officials, restaurant workers, and the City of Baltimore has filed a federal complaint to block President Trump’s executive orders titled, “Ending Radical Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” and “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (collectively the “Anti-DEIA Executive Orders”).
This challenge, filed in federal court in Maryland, is brought by the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland, represented by Democracy Forward and Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian American Justice Center (“Advancing Justice – AAJC”).
The suit alleges that the Anti-DEIA Executive Orders are chilling speech and expression and have sowed chaos, fear, and confusion from higher education institutions to restaurant workplaces to cities and communities . The Orders, which the suit alleges are unlawfully vague, suggest that the President may with the stroke of a pen prioritize some viewpoints over others, terminate any “equity-related” funding, force federal contractors and grantees to certify that they do not promote “illegal DEI,” and target those in the private sector who support DEIA efforts. Plaintiffs, like many others in the nation, are afraid to carry out their lawful DEIA initiatives that are core to their missions. If they do, they may lose critical funding or face enforcement actions.
The suit alleges that the Anti-DEIA Executive Orders chill free speech on matters of substantial political import, solely because the President disagrees with that speech and that they obstruct Congress’ exclusive constitutional power of the purse.