In a dramatic week for education policy in the United States, two federal courts issued pivotal decisions on the future of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in schools and universities, leaving the landscape more complex than ever. On August 14, 2025, U.S. District Judge David Proctor in Alabama declined to block a state law that bans DEI programs and the teaching of so-called "divisive concepts" in public education. Meanwhile, across the country, Maryland’s U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher struck down a Trump administration effort to eliminate DEI initiatives nationwide, calling the federal Department of Education’s actions unlawful. The dueling rulings highlight a nation deeply divided over the role of DEI in classrooms—and the high stakes for educators, students, and policymakers alike.
Alabama’s law, which took effect in October 2024, prohibits public schools and universities from hosting or funding DEI programs. It also outlaws teaching concepts that could make someone feel guilty or complicit for actions committed by others in the past or present based on race or ethnicity. According to Nexstar Media, the law is part of a broader push in several states to restrict classroom discussions about race, identity, and history, often under the banner of combating "divisive concepts."
Professors and students at the University of Alabama challenged the law in federal court, arguing that it violates their First Amendment rights to free speech and infringes on academic freedom. They claimed the restrictions forced them to change lesson plans and avoid certain topics, fearing they could run afoul of the new rules. However, Judge Proctor found that the plaintiffs did not meet the legal standard required for a preliminary injunction, meaning the law will remain in effect while the case proceeds.
In his written decision, Judge Proctor clarified that the law does not outright ban the discussion of controversial topics. Instead, it "expressly permits classroom instruction that includes ‘discussion’ of the listed concepts so long as the ‘instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement’ of the concepts." He elaborated, "If, alternatively, the theory she teaches about is that there is empirical evidence that racism may be a cause for health disparities, or if she frames such teaching as merely a theory, she would not violate SB 129." The judge’s reasoning suggests that so long as educators present information objectively and refrain from advocating for certain viewpoints, they can still address sensitive issues in their classrooms.
Still, faculty members argue the law has had a chilling effect. According to the Associated Press, professors say they have altered their lesson plans to avoid any appearance of endorsing banned concepts, which they contend limits robust academic debate and exploration. The case will continue to wind its way through the courts, but for now, Alabama’s restrictions on DEI and divisive concepts remain on the books.
While the Alabama ruling upholds a state-level crackdown on DEI, a federal court in Maryland delivered a contrasting decision with national implications. Judge Stephanie Gallagher, herself a Trump appointee, ruled that the Department of Education violated the law when it threatened to cut federal funding from educational institutions that refused to comply with President Donald Trump’s executive order to eliminate DEI programs. This order, issued during Trump’s presidency, demanded schools and universities end all "race-based decision-making" or risk severe penalties, including the loss of crucial federal dollars.
The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed in February 2025 by the American Federation of Teachers and the American Sociological Association, who challenged two Education Department memos as illegal government censorship. According to the Los Angeles Times, the memos were issued in the wake of the Supreme Court’s controversial decision to overturn affirmative action, which the Trump administration argued justified a crackdown on DEI efforts—especially those perceived as discriminatory against white and Asian American students.
Judge Gallagher rejected the government’s defense that the memos merely reminded schools about existing anti-discrimination laws. Instead, she found that the Department’s actions amounted to a sweeping change in how educational practices and classroom conduct are regulated. "It initiated a sea change in how the Department of Education regulates educational practices and classroom conduct, causing millions of educators to reasonably fear that their lawful, and even beneficial, speech might cause them or their schools to be punished," Gallagher wrote in her decision.
The decision was met with jubilation among educators and advocates for DEI. Tanya Ortiz Franklin, a Los Angeles school board member, celebrated the victory, especially since California’s Department of Education had resisted Trump’s order to certify the 1,000 school districts that ended all DEI programs. "Hooray! We love court rulings that recognize the value of our kids and the vision of democracy, which includes diversity, equity, and inclusion, and we look forward to implementing all that we can to make sure kids know where they come from, that they’re valued here, and that we are preparing them for the world," Franklin said, as reported by the Associated Press.
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, the legal advocacy group representing the plaintiffs, called the ruling a major accomplishment: "Threatening teachers and sowing chaos in schools throughout America is part of the administration’s war on education, and today the people won." The sentiment was echoed by educators nationwide who have viewed the Trump administration’s anti-DEI initiatives as an existential threat to inclusive education.
Despite the setback, the Department of Education, now led by Linda McMahon, expressed disappointment and signaled it would continue to pursue its anti-diversity agenda. In a statement, the agency insisted that "judicial action enjoining or setting aside this guidance has not stopped our ability to enforce Title VI protections for students at an unprecedented level." This suggests that, even with the court’s rebuke, the federal government may continue to interpret and enforce anti-discrimination laws in ways that challenge the scope of DEI programs.
The two rulings—one upholding a state-level ban on DEI and divisive concepts, the other striking down a federal effort to eliminate DEI nationwide—underscore the patchwork nature of education policy in the U.S. For now, Alabama educators must navigate a restrictive law that limits how they address race and identity in the classroom, while institutions elsewhere have gained a reprieve from federal threats to their DEI efforts. The legal battles are far from over, and as both cases continue, the future of DEI in American education remains uncertain.
These courtroom dramas reveal just how contentious and unsettled the debate over diversity, equity, and inclusion has become in the United States. With passionate arguments on all sides and the law in flux, educators and students across the country are left wondering what the next chapter will bring.
