Federal judge overturns Trump administration's anti-DEI directives, blocking threats to strip funding from schools and universities

The battle over diversity, equity, and inclusion in American classrooms reached a decisive moment on Thursday when a federal judge struck down two Trump administration directives aimed at eradicating such programmes from schools and universities. The ruling dismantles a policy framework that threatened institutions with financial ruin for maintaining equity-based initiatives, and it restores, at least temporarily, the space for educators to address longstanding disparities without fear of federal reprisal.

Emerging from a political climate where DEI has become both a rallying cry and a lightning rod, the decision underscores how deeply divided the nation remains on questions of race, representation, and academic freedom. Opponents of the initiatives cast them as reverse discrimination; defenders see them as vital correctives to structural inequities. This judgment does not settle that moral argument, but it imposes a procedural halt on a campaign that had sought to recast civil rights law in ways critics warned would silence lawful and necessary educational practices.


A ruling that reverberates across campuses

US District Judge Stephanie Gallagher of Maryland ruled that the Education Department acted unlawfully when it threatened to strip federal funding from institutions that maintained DEI efforts. The contested guidance, delivered through two internal memos, ordered the elimination of all “race-based decision-making” in admissions, hiring, financial aid, and student life, or risk severe financial penalties.

The memos had been on hold since April, after multiple courts blocked portions of the department’s anti-DEI campaign. Thursday’s decision, prompted by a lawsuit from the American Federation of Teachers and the American Sociological Association, sweeps away the guidance entirely.


Educators push back against ‘censorship’
Plaintiffs argued that the directives forced educators into an impossible choice: Censor lawful speech and dismantle inclusive programmes or face the loss of federal funding and possible prosecution.


A drastic expansion of Supreme Court ruling

The February 14 memo sought to extend the Supreme Court’s 2023 ban on affirmative action well beyond its original scope. It declared that any consideration of race in academic policy was a violation of civil rights law. A follow-up in April intensified the pressure, requiring states to certify they were not using “illegal DEI practices” or face the False Claims Act.

Gallagher rejected the government’s argument that the memos merely restated existing law, noting instead that they “initiated a sea change” in oversight and left “millions of educators” fearing punishment for lawful and even beneficial actions.


The procedural faultline

Crucially, Gallagher did not weigh in on whether DEI is inherently good or bad. Her ruling focused on the Education Department’s failure to meet procedural requirements, ordering the immediate withdrawal of the guidance.

The department has not commented on the decision, which for now halts an initiative critics described as government overreach dressed in the language of equality.


A deeply polarised battlefield

Supporters of the memos claimed DEI discriminates against white and Asian American students, while opponents view it as an essential tool to address entrenched inequities. Thursday’s decision keeps the debate alive, and, for now, leaves space for educators to continue equity-driven practices without the shadow of federal retaliation.