Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), spearheaded one of the lawsuits challenging the U.S. Department of Education's controversial guidance regarding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives in educational institutions.

On Thursday, in a significant legal development, federal judges in New Hampshire and Maryland issued rulings preventing the Department of Education from enforcing its guidance that deemed all race-based programming and activities illegal. This decision came after the courts determined that the plaintiffs in both lawsuits had a strong likelihood of demonstrating that the February 14 Dear Colleague letter violated procedural standards and infringed upon the First Amendment rights.

Prior to these court orders, educational institutionsboth colleges and K-12 schoolsfaced severe repercussions for non-compliance with the guidance, risking their federal funding. The New Hampshire judge commented on the ambiguity of the 2025 letter, pointing out that while it fails to specify what is prohibited, it clearly suggests that schools should avoid anything that could be interpreted as DEI-related to evade potential punitive measures. This ambiguity led to a predictable outcome: institutions might eliminate all traces of DEI efforts to avoid the risk of losing essential federal grants, which could cripple their operations.

The preliminary injunction issued by the New Hampshire court specifically targeted institutions affiliated with the plaintiff association, leaving many other colleges and universities vulnerable to the effects of the Department of Education's guidance. However, shortly thereafter, a Maryland judge issued her ruling, effectively extending the injunction nationwide and preventing the enforcement of the letter until the resolution of the ongoing litigation.

It is important to note that these injunctions do not fully shield institutions from all aspects of the Trump administration's aggressive stance on DEI. The Dear Colleague letter represents just one component of a multifaceted strategy aimed at dismantling DEI initiatives across the educational landscape.

In a separate legal action initiated by the NAACP, a District of Columbia judge ruled against the Department of Education's requirement for K-12 schools to certify that they do not engage in any DEI programming. This ruling came just before the April 24 deadline set by the department, which had threatened to withhold federal funding from non-compliant schools. The Maryland judge's decision underscored the plaintiffs' likelihood of success, stating that the certification requirement imposed serious financial consequences based on poorly defined criteria.

Since the issuance of the Dear Colleague letter, a wave of alarm has swept through K-12 and higher education advocates nationwide. Many legal experts and educators have raised concerns that this document epitomizes the misuse of executive power by the Trump administration, undermining the ideals of educational equity.

According to the guidance released by the Education Department, the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvardwhich prohibited race-conscious admissionsalso rendered any race-based programming, resources, and financial assistance unlawful. The department provided colleges with a mere two weeks to comply with these sweeping changes. Following the letter's implementation, the Office for Civil Rights initiated numerous investigations into various colleges for allegedly violating the newly established guidelines.

In an effort to align with the new regulations, many institutions began to backtrack on or rebrand their DEI initiatives, resources, and scholarship offerings. Notably, universities such as Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Alaska removed references to terms like diversity and inclusion from their websites. Ohio State University went as far as to disband its DEI office and revise eligibility criteria for certain programs, actions taken despite recommendations from academic associations advising against preemptive compliance.

In a follow-up to the letter, on March 3, the Education Department released a FAQ document that softened some of the directive's more extreme demands. Nevertheless, the backlash from higher education organizations persisted, leading to the swift filing of both lawsuits.

The lawsuit in New Hampshire was spearheaded by the National Education Association (NEA), the largest K-12 union in the nation, while the Maryland lawsuit was led by AFT, which represents numerous higher education faculty members. The unions contended that the letter's threat to cut federal funding infringed upon the First and Fifth Amendments and employed vague language that surpassed the Education Department's statutory authority. Furthermore, they argued that the removal of DEI programs and the looming funding cuts would significantly hamper schools' and universities' capacities to serve as vehicles for socioeconomic advancement.

This letter represents an unlawful attempt by the Department of Education to impose its specific ideology on how schools should function, as if it were statutory law. However, it is not, the AFT complaint stated. The requirements of Title VI have not changed, nor has the interpretation of the SFFA decision, despite the Departments assertions. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin.

During a recent hearing in the Maryland case, the Department of Education defended its position, claiming that the letter simply reaffirmed existing civil rights laws that protect all students from discrimination, regardless of race. U.S. attorney Abhishek Kambli asserted, Its highly unlikely that theyre going to target a school merely for including certain educational materials. He maintained that the letter merely clarifies the obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

However, both judges in New Hampshire and Maryland were not convinced by this argument. The New Hampshire judge expressed concern that the policies outlined in the letter inadequately defined DEI, thereby posing a risk to the foundational principles of free speech and academic freedom. The Maryland judge, taking a legal approach based on substantive and procedural legality, noted that the letter fell short of meeting necessary legal standards.

The plaintiffs have demonstrated that the government likely failed to adhere to required procedures, and these procedural missteps have caused concrete harm to the plaintiffs, wrote Judge Gallagher. This case highlights the critical importance of following proper procedures, even when they pose challenges.

Although the court orders are presently temporary and the litigation is set to continue, many education stakeholders view this as a significant victory. The nationwide injunction will at least temporarily halt the turmoil the Trump administration seeks to instigate within classrooms and educational communities across the country, remarked Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forwarda pro bono legal group representing AFT in Maryland. This will allow our clients to demonstrate in court how these attacks on public education are unconstitutional and should be permanently halted.

AFT president Randi Weingarten echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that the court recognized that this vague and evidently unconstitutional requirement poses a serious threat to students, our profession, and the integrity of historical education and knowledge.

For the NEA, the ruling in New Hampshire was celebrated as a win for students, parents, and educators, effectively blocking what they deemed an unprecedented and unlawful attempt to dictate the operations of American schools. Educators nationwide strive to support every student, ensuring that each one feels safe, valued, and prepared for the future, stated NEA president Becky Pringle in a news release. Todays judgment allows educators and schools to prioritize what benefits studentsfree from the fear of illegal restrictions and punitive actions.

As of the time of publication, the Department of Education had not responded to inquiries from Inside Higher Ed regarding this matter.