ACLU of Maryland and Advocates Urge Court to Block Trump Administration’s Unconstitutional Attack on Equity and Free Expression

BALTIMORE, MD – The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments this week in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump. At issue is whether to uphold a Maryland federal court ruling that struck down two Trump Administration executive orders for illegally targeting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts.

The ACLU of Maryland, Public Justice Center, and the Union of Concerned Scientists filed an amicus curiae (or friend of the court) brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to uphold the lower court’s ruling. The brief shows how Executive Orders 14151 and 14173 misrepresent DEI efforts as illegal and threaten devastating penalties for schools, nonprofits, and businesses that continue them.

Filed in February 2025 by plaintiffs including the Mayor and City of Baltimore, the lawsuit argued that the orders chilled protected speech and caused irreparable harm. The U.S. District Court of Maryland agreed and issued an injunction on First Amendment grounds. The government then appealed that decision.

The amicus brief documents how the executive orders have decimated equity efforts:

• Canceled health and science grants for merely using terms like “equity” or “women”
• Threats to cut federal funding to schools that discuss race and equity in the classroom
• Investigations of private companies with diversity initiatives or any diversity-related expression

“These orders are ideological crackdowns on viewpoints the administration dislikes—particularly that advancing diversity, equity and inclusion are fundamental American values,” said Sonia Kumar, Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU of Maryland. “The administration is entitled to its misguided views, but it cannot force Americans to silence their own by wrongly branding them as illegal.”

DEI initiatives expand merit-based consideration by addressing real barriers that people may face in their daily lives—whether that’s ensuring parental leave is available for all genders, requiring installation of wheelchair ramps as part of building codes, or examining racial inequality in scientific scholarship. The Administration’s orders never define DEI or “illegal” DEI, instead weaponizing the term as a political tool disconnected from any rational interpretation of federal civil rights law.

The amicus curiae brief chronicles how the government has created a climate of fear that contradicts its courtroom claim that the orders merely “provide guidance” for enforcing existing anti-discrimination law. In practice, the orders spread confusion, fear, and censorship—forcing schools, scientists, and nonprofits to abandon lawful and urgently needed work. Public and private institutions now fear that any DEI-related work could be considered illegal and trigger fines, lost grants, or DOJ investigations.

These threats and actions confirm the U.S. District Court’s ruling: the orders are designed to chill protected speech and have no legal basis.

“The government calls these orders limited and benign,” said Deborah Jeon, Legal Director of the ACLU of Maryland. “But in reality, federal agencies are treating all DEIA-related activity as suspect—legal or not. This bait-and-switch threatens fundamental First Amendment protections and undermines hard-fought civil rights progress.”

The amicus brief was authored by cooperating counsel Michael Abrams with ACLU of Maryland attorneys Deborah Jeon, Sonia Kumar, and Zoe Ginsberg. Partners include the Union of Concerned Scientists (www.UCS.org) and the Public Justice Center (www.PublicJustice.org). The lawsuit, NADOHE v. Trump, (25-1189), was filed by Democracy Forward and Asian Americans Against Hate on behalf of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.