Federal Judge Ends Lawsuit Into Trump Policy Against DEI In Schools
In a significant legal development, a federal judge in New Hampshire has dismissed a year-long lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s directive targeting “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) programs in public schools — after both sides agreed the case was no longer necessary.
U.S. District Judge Landya McCafferty approved the joint agreement Tuesday between the National Education Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the United States Department of Justice. The court received the agreement on February 3, 2016, formally closing the dispute over the policy.
The lawsuit stemmed from a February 2025 letter issued by the U.S. Department of Education shortly after President Donald J. Trump began his second term. The letter warned public school districts nationwide that federal officials would scrutinize policies, programs, and contracts tied to “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
The directive instructed districts to revise or terminate DEI-related policies and contracts, cautioning that maintaining such initiatives could violate federal civil rights law and jeopardize federal funding.
In response, the New Hampshire Department of Education — which administers federal education funds to local districts — directed schools to review existing contracts and vendors for potential violations of the new federal guidance.
Concerns over potential funding losses prompted legal action. In March 2025, several New Hampshire school districts, joined by state and national affiliates of the National Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, filed suit in federal court in Concord. They argued the directive amounted to an unconstitutional attempt to withhold funding from public schools.
In early April 2025, the Department of Education temporarily paused enforcement efforts. On April 24, Judge McCafferty issued a temporary injunction blocking enforcement actions against certain New Hampshire districts.
“DEI as a concept is broad; one can imagine a wide range of viewpoints on what values of diversity, equity, and inclusion mean when describing a program or practice,” McCafferty wrote at the time. “It is no surprise that several courts — including this one — have struck down similar laws as void for vagueness.”
With the lawsuit now dismissed by agreement of the parties, the legal challenge to the directive has effectively ended in New Hampshire, marking a notable chapter in the broader national debate over DEI policies in public education.
The development comes amid another major courtroom victory for the Trump administration.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon permanently blocked the release of Volume II of former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report concerning President Trump’s handling of classified materials following his first term.
Judge Cannon, appointed to the bench during President Trump’s first term, ruled that releasing the volume would constitute a “manifest injustice” to the president and other defendants in the case.
“Special Counsel Smith, acting without lawful authority, obtained an indictment in this action and initiated proceedings that resulted in a final order of dismissal of all charges,” Cannon wrote.
Her order bars the Justice Department from “releasing, distributing, conveying, or sharing with anyone outside the Department of Justice any information or conclusions in Volume II or in drafts thereof.”
The decision coincided with the anticipated public release of the report’s second volume.
Trump’s former defense attorney, Kendra Wharton, praised the ruling in comments to Fox News Digital, stating that Cannon’s “courage and judicial resolve on these important due process issues should be recognized and taught in law school classrooms across America.”
Judge Cannon had previously determined that Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unlawful. The classified documents case was ultimately dismissed after President Trump’s decisive re-election victory in 2024, consistent with longstanding Justice Department policy that prohibits prosecuting a sitting president.
In 2022, then-Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith to investigate allegations related to the 2020 election and the retention of classified documents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach following the end of his first term. Smith filed charges in both matters before stepping down after the 2024 election.
Taken together, this week’s rulings represent significant legal victories for President Trump — reinforcing executive authority in education policy while safeguarding due process protections against what critics have described as politically motivated prosecutions.