Trump Scores Massive Victory As Appeals Court Lifts Injunction On His DEI Order
President Donald Trump has achieved a significant win in his push to eliminate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs within the federal government.
On Friday, a federal appeals court overturned a lower court’s injunction that had blocked the president’s executive order aimed at terminating DEI initiatives funded by taxpayer dollars.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, removed the nationwide injunction that had been placed by U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson, an appointee of President Biden, in Baltimore, according to NBC News.
A three-judge panel ruled that the president’s directives, which included instructing the Department of Justice to investigate businesses implementing DEI policies, were likely constitutional.
However, two of the three judges expressed disagreement with the policies themselves, suggesting that their implementation might violate constitutional principles.
“Despite the vitriol now being heaped on DEI, people of good faith who work to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion deserve praise, not opprobrium,” Circuit Judge Albert Diaz stated in his opinion. Yet, this commentary appeared to be legally irrelevant, as noted by District Judge Allison Rushing, a Trump appointee, in her response.
“A judge’s opinion that DEI programs ‘deserve praise, not opprobrium’ should play absolutely no part in deciding this case,” she wrote.
In February, Attorney General Pam Bondi dismissed several federal lawsuits that had been initiated by the Biden administration against local police and fire departments due to their merit-based hiring practices.
During Biden’s tenure, the Department of Justice’s Office of Civil Rights had taken legal action against first responder agencies for prioritizing qualifications over racial considerations in hiring, as reported by Just the News.
“Despite no evidence of intentional discrimination – only statistical disparities – the prior administration branded the aptitude tests at issue in these cases as discriminatory in an effort to advance a DEI agenda,” the DOJ stated in a press release.
“And it sought to coerce cities into conducting DEI-based hiring in response and spending millions of dollars in taxpayer funds for payouts to previous applicants who had scored lower on the tests, regardless of qualifications,” the statement continued.
President Trump’s executive orders formally put an end to DEI policies within federal agencies, and Bondi’s latest action represents another step in the administration’s broader initiative to dismantle DEI programs.
Bondi’s office argued that DEI policies endanger public safety and emphasized that dismissing these cases serves as “an early step toward eradicating illegal DEI preferences across the government and in the private sector.”
“American communities deserve firefighters and police officers to be chosen for their skill and dedication to public safety – not to meet DEI quotas,” Bondi asserted.
The proposed consent decrees had acknowledged that hiring departments used neutral selection criteria—including credit checks, written exams, and physical fitness tests—to evaluate candidates. However, data revealed that White male candidates generally achieved higher scores or performed better on these assessments, Fox News reported.
For example, a lawsuit filed in October against the City of Durham, North Carolina, cited alleged “unintentional” discrimination against Black applicants, pointing to lower passing rates on a written exam requiring a minimum score of 70%. This resulted in a reduced number of Black hires.
To address this disparity, the lawsuit suggested removing the neutral written exam and offering “back pay and/or preferential hiring” to Black applicants who were not selected due to test performance. The estimated financial impact of these remedies was approximately $980,000 in monetary relief.
In a separate legal case against the Maryland State Police in October 2024, it was proposed that the agency discontinue its existing selection criteria. The process in question required a minimum written test score of 70% and included a physical assessment measuring push-ups, sit-ups, flexibility, a trigger pull, and a 1.5-mile run, Fox News reported.
“Because Black applicants passed the test less often than White applicants and because women passed the physical test less often than men, the Civil Rights Division concluded that Maryland was illegally discriminating against Black applicants and women,” a court filing stated.