In a significant legal setback for the Trump administration’s campaign against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in American education, a federal judge in Maryland has struck down two directives from the U.S. Department of Education that sought to eliminate such programs in schools and colleges. The ruling, delivered on August 18, 2025, by U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, found that the department violated the law when it threatened to withhold federal funding from institutions that continued to support DEI policies.
This decision comes after months of legal wrangling and follows an earlier pause on the department’s guidance in April, when three federal judges temporarily blocked parts of the anti-DEI measures. The case was brought forward in February by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the American Sociological Association, and a public school district in Oregon, with legal representation from the advocacy group Democracy Forward.
At the heart of the dispute were two memos from the Department of Education. The first, a so-called "Dear Colleague" letter sent on February 14, 2025, warned schools—from K-12 districts to universities—that they risked losing federal funding if they engaged in race-conscious practices in programming, admissions, scholarships, or other aspects of student life. The second memo ordered state education leaders to certify their compliance with the department’s new anti-DEI standards, giving them only days to do so in April or risk financial penalties. According to The Guardian and States Newsroom, these directives reflected a broader Trump administration push to eliminate what it described as "race-based decision-making" in education, including tutoring for students of specific races, lessons on white privilege, recruitment of diverse teachers, and race-specific scholarships or orientation programs.
Judge Gallagher, herself a Trump appointee, did not mince words in her ruling. She declared both the letter and the certification requirement "unconstitutionally vague," vacating the two directives. In her written opinion, she noted, "The administration is entitled to express its viewpoints and to promulgate policies aligned with those viewpoints. But it must do so within the procedural bounds Congress has outlined. And it may not do so at the expense of constitutional rights." Importantly, Gallagher clarified that she was not taking a position on the underlying merits of DEI policies themselves, writing that she took "no view on whether the policies were good or bad, prudent or foolish, fair or unfair." Instead, the ruling focused on the department’s failure to follow proper procedural requirements and the potential infringement on constitutional protections.
The Department of Education’s aggressive interpretation of a 2023 Supreme Court ruling—one that struck down affirmative action in college admissions—was cited as the basis for its expanded anti-DEI campaign. The February 14 letter, which ran four pages, left many schools scrambling to determine what practices might run afoul of the new guidance. In March, the department attempted to clarify matters with a Frequently Asked Questions document, but confusion persisted. When state education leaders were told in April to quickly certify that all K-12 schools were in compliance, the legal battle reached a boiling point.
The response from the education community was swift and forceful. Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, hailed the court’s decision as a vital defense of educational integrity. In a statement quoted by States Newsroom, she said, "the court agreed that this vague and clearly unconstitutional requirement is a grave attack on students, our profession, honest history, and knowledge itself." Weingarten went further, arguing that the department’s approach "would hamper efforts to extend access to education, and dash the promise of equal opportunity for all, a central tenet of the United States since its founding."
On the other side, a spokesperson for the Department of Education expressed disappointment with the ruling but insisted that the setback would not deter the agency from upholding anti-discrimination protections. "While the Department is disappointed in the judge’s ruling, judicial action enjoining or setting aside this guidance has not stopped our ability to enforce Title VI protections for students at an unprecedented level," the spokesperson said. "The Department remains committed to its responsibility to uphold students’ anti-discrimination protections under the law."
The Maryland ruling was not the only legal blow to the Trump administration’s anti-DEI efforts this summer. In July, Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts blocked administration attempts to cut millions of dollars in National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants tied to DEI initiatives. These NIH grants supported research into gender identity and equity in health care, two areas that had become targets in the administration’s broader campaign. Judge Young found portions of the NIH funding cuts "void and illegal," accusing the administration of racial bias and prejudice against LGBTQ people. According to The Guardian, the blocked cuts would have severely impacted research and programs aimed at promoting health equity and understanding gender identity.
The legal battles over DEI reflect deeper national divisions over how schools and universities should address persistent gaps in opportunity and representation. Supporters of DEI argue that proactive efforts are essential to fulfill the promise of equal opportunity, especially for historically marginalized groups. Opponents, including many in the Trump administration, contend that such policies can amount to reverse discrimination, particularly against white and Asian American students, and run counter to recent Supreme Court decisions limiting race-conscious admissions.
For many educators and civil rights advocates, the Maryland ruling represents a crucial victory in an era of heightened scrutiny and political polarization. The American Federation of Teachers and the American Sociological Association, both plaintiffs in the case, have described the decision as a reaffirmation of constitutional safeguards and a necessary check on executive overreach. Meanwhile, the Department of Education’s statement underscores that the fight over DEI is far from settled, as the agency continues to wield Title VI and other anti-discrimination statutes to shape educational policy.
Legal experts note that while Judge Gallagher’s decision vacates the specific guidance in question, it does not resolve the underlying debate over the role of DEI in American education. The ruling’s emphasis on procedural fairness and constitutional rights may serve as a model for future challenges, but the broader ideological clash over race, equity, and inclusion is likely to persist in courts, legislatures, and classrooms across the country.
As the new school year approaches, administrators, teachers, and students are left navigating a landscape where the legal status of DEI programs remains uncertain, but the stakes could hardly be higher. Whether this ruling marks a turning point or just another chapter in a long-running battle, one thing is clear: the conversation about fairness, opportunity, and the future of American education is far from over.
