A federal judge in New Hampshire has temporarily blocked directives from the Trump administration threatening to withdraw federal funding from public schools with diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. This decision is part of ongoing legal challenges against the administration’s attempts to eliminate DEI initiatives in educational institutions nationwide.
U.S. District Court Judge Landya McCafferty issued a preliminary injunction following a lawsuit filed by the National Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union. The lawsuit contends that the administration’s guidance was “unconstitutionally vague” and infringed upon teachers’ First Amendment rights.
Judge McCafferty highlighted concerns with the Education Department’s directives, particularly their lack of definition. “The Letter does not even define what a ‘DEI program’ is,” she wrote. This vagueness, she noted, leaves schools and educators uncertain about which practices could jeopardize their federal funding.
This ruling is one of three separate decisions by federal judges that have challenged President Trump’s education policies. Judges in Maryland and Washington, D.C. also ruled against the administration’s anti-DEI directives, deeming them improperly issued and likely unconstitutional.
In February, the U.S. Education Department sent a “Dear Colleague” letter instructing schools to end practices that differentiate people based on race. Earlier this month, the department increased pressure by requiring states to collect signatures from local school systems certifying compliance with civil rights laws, specifically rejecting what it termed “illegal DEI practices.”
Although the directives lack legal force, they threatened to employ civil rights enforcement mechanisms to remove DEI practices from schools. The Education Department warned that continuing such practices “in violation of federal law” could result in Justice Department litigation and the termination of federal grants and contracts.
Judge McCafferty raised significant concerns about potential First Amendment violations. She noted that under the administration’s guidance, “A professor runs afoul of the 2025 Letter if she expresses the view in her teaching that structural racism exists in America, but does not do so if she denies structural racism’s existence. That is textbook viewpoint discrimination.”
The legal challenges also argue that the February memo significantly and improperly expands the interpretation of a 2023 Supreme Court decision. While that ruling banned the use of race in college admissions, the Education Department’s guidance sought to apply it to all aspects of education, including hiring, promotion, scholarships, housing, graduation ceremonies, and campus life.
States were initially given until April 24 to submit certification of their schools’ compliance with the directives. Education Secretary Linda McMahon had warned of consequences for non-compliance. In a Tuesday interview on Fox Business Network, McMahon stated that states refusing to sign could “risk some defunding in their districts.” She defended the certification requirement, explaining its intent was “to make sure there’s no discrimination that’s happening in any of the schools.”
The response from states has varied significantly along political lines. Several Democratic-led states indicated they would not comply with the administration’s orders. Officials in these states argued that the administration was overstepping its authority and that DEI programs themselves are not illegal.
New York was the first state to formally reject the administration’s request, arguing that no laws prohibit DEI principles. Other states followed suit, questioning both the legal authority behind the directives and their clarity.
Meanwhile, education officials in some Republican-led states embraced the administration’s position. For example, Arizona’s superintendent of public instruction supported the new guidance, describing DEI as an “evil movement” with an excessive focus on race.
The April directive specifically requested states to collect certification forms from local school districts and sign on behalf of the state, assuring compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While schools and states are already required to provide similar assurances through separate paperwork, the new form added specific language about DEI, warning that using diversity programs to discriminate could result in funding cuts, fines, and other penalties.
At stake is schools’ access to Title I funding, the largest source of federal revenue for K-12 education and critical support for schools in low-income areas. The American Federation of Teachers characterized the administration’s approach as a “power grab” and “money grab” that violates federal statutes prohibiting the president from dictating school curricula.
The lawsuits against the administration’s directives include additional complaints from the American Federation of Teachers, the American Sociological Association, and the NAACP. These organizations have raised concerns about potential limitations on academic freedom and the ambiguity surrounding what practices might violate the administration’s interpretation of civil rights law.
A particular concern highlighted in the legal challenges is whether voluntary student groups for minority students would still be permitted under the administration’s guidance. Critics argue that the vague nature of the directives could lead schools to eliminate beneficial programs out of fear of losing federal funding.
While the preliminary injunctions prevent the administration from enforcing its directives for now, legal observers expect the cases to proceed through the courts. The rulings, though not final determinations on the merits of the lawsuits, suggest that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on at least some of their claims.
