Publication
Lawsuit Threatens DEI-Related Executive Orders
As outlined in a recently published Legal Alert,1 shortly after taking office, President Donald Trump enacted two Executive Orders designed to detect and eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs related to government contracts. This week, a group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to prohibit enforcement of those orders.2
Executive Orders. To briefly recap, on January 20, 2025, the President signed Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing (J20 Order), which requires the Office of Management and Budget to “coordinate the termination of all discriminatory programs, including DEI.” On January 21, 2025, the President signed Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (J21 Order), which prohibits government contractors from engaging “in workforce balancing based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin.”
Parties and Claims. On February 4, 2025, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, and the City of Baltimore, Maryland, filed a lawsuit against President Trump and various federal agencies. In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs raise a variety of constitutional claims and arguments, including that:
- President Trump lacked the legal authority to direct the termination of “‘equity related’ grants and contracts” in the J20 Order.
- Both the J20 and J21 Orders are unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment because they fail to define key terms, such as “DEI” and “illegal DEI discrimination and preferences.”
- The J21 Order violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment because the Order’s threats of civil compliance investigations and its failure to define material terms chills speech based on content and viewpoint.
- The J21 Order violates separation of powers principles because it purports to exercise spending power, which belongs to the legislative — not executive — branch of government.
Next Steps. While it is still premature to predict the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit, if the Court finds merit in the Plaintiffs’ arguments, it could issue a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the Executive Orders before the case is fully litigated. If that were to occur, businesses and agencies affected by the Executive Orders could temporarily pause compliance efforts until the lawsuit is resolved or the preliminary injunction lifted. However, because the timeline of these developments remains somewhat unpredictable — especially if the case were to go up on appeal — government contractors should stay up to date regarding ongoing case developments and be prepared to respond accordingly.
In the meantime, government contractors should remain diligent in their efforts to bring their policies and practices into compliance with the Executive Orders as the ninety-day compliance deadline approaches. If the Court does not act, the Trump Administration may begin enforcing the Executive Orders after the compliance deadline. As always, Snell & Wilmer continues to monitor Executive Orders and related legal challenges, and remains available to assist with all regulatory and compliance needs of affected businesses.
Footnotes
-
Ryan J. Regula, Charlene A. Warner, and Lilly M. Harris, What President Trump’s Executive Orders Could Mean for the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program (Feb. 3, 2025), https://www.swlaw.com/publication/what-president-trumps-executive-orders-could-mean-for-the-disadvantaged-business-enterprise-program/.
-
National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00333 (D. Md.).
About Snell & Wilmer
Founded in 1938, Snell & Wilmer is a full-service business law firm with more than 500 attorneys practicing in 16 locations throughout the United States and in Mexico, including Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego, California; Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona; Denver, Colorado; Washington, D.C.; Boise, Idaho; Las Vegas and Reno, Nevada; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Portland, Oregon; Dallas, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah; Seattle, Washington; and Los Cabos, Mexico. The firm represents clients ranging from large, publicly traded corporations to small businesses, individuals and entrepreneurs. For more information, visit swlaw.com.
