The Supreme Court on Friday let the Trump administration temporarily suspend $65 million in teacher-training grants that the government contends would promote diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, an early victory for the administration in front of the justices.

The court’s order was unsigned, which is typical when the justices act on emergency applications. The temporary pause will remain in effect while the case is appealed.

The decision was 5 to 4, with five of the court’s conservatives — Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Brett M. Kavanaugh — in the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voted with the court’s three liberal justices in dissent.

The order came in response to one of a series of emergency requests by the Trump administration asking the justices to intervene and overturn lower court rulings that have temporarily blocked parts of President Trump’s agenda.

A Thursday Supreme Court decision about workplace discrimination is expected to change the way that employment law is practiced in the U.S. and make it easier for people to lodge claims against their organizations.

The court unanimously ruled that people who belong to majority groups, which would include white people or heterosexual people, do not need to show a higher standard of proof or “background circumstances” in order to sue their employers. Until now, some lower circuit courts placed a higher burden on these plaintiffs, requiring them to prove that their employer was unusual in its moves to discriminate against them.

The case was brought by Marlean Ames, a former government employee for the state of Ohio who sued her employer after she was passed over for two promotions that were given to gay coworkers instead.

The Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act doesn’t specify between majority and minority groups, and that the burden of discrimination applies to all groups equally. “The court essentially decided that discrimination is discrimination, and that all concerns around such should be taken seriously. And that means there being no higher burden, as a matter of law, to show it,” says Nonnie Shivers, employment and labor attorney and managing shareholder at firm Ogletree Deakins.

The court ruled as expected, but legal experts say the decision will have major ramifications across the employment sphere, and will likely lead to an uptick in reverse discrimination cases, in which a member of a majority group sues over perceived prejudice.

“We should expect to see this trend continue, and see an uptick in these so-called reverse discrimination claims brought by men who are not members of historically disadvantaged groups,” Michael Steinberg, a labor and employment attorney at firm Seyfarth Shaw, tells Fortune. “Now they’ll be armed with the Ames case, which confirms that the same framework for discrimination applies to anyone.”

The court’s decision comes as diversity, equity and inclusion practices in corporate America are under attack. Over the past two years, many companies have rolled back their DEI practices following the Supreme Court’s decision to ban affirmative action in colleges and universities. Although that decision did not apply to companies, it proved to be an inflection point around cultural attitudes towards DEI, and led to ripple effects in the working world.

Over the past few months, the Trump administration has taken aim at DEI in the workplace through a series of executive orders. Those moves have forced companies to reexamine their policies and decide whether or not they will stand by their DEI programs, change them in significant ways, or simply alter them in small ways to stay out of political crosshairs.

Some Supreme Court justices, including Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, specifically cited DEI in their decisions. Thomas wrote that employers in America have been “‘obsessed’” with ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ initiatives and affirmative action plans,” and have ​​”overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups.”

“It’s not surprising, but it’s confirmation that at least two of the justices on the Supreme Court are hostile to DEI,” says David Glasgow, executive director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging at New York University, tells Fortune. “I don’t think there’s been another case where they’ve actually put in writing, and these concurrences are sometimes used as breadcrumbs to encourage potential plaintiffs to see shifts in the wind and then follow them right to bring future claims.

June 26, 2025 – As ICE raids ramp up across California, family members — and sometimes students themselves — have been detained or deported.

Credit: Carlos Kosienski/Sipa via AP Images

Tough decisions lie ahead for schools across California as the federal government cracks down on diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

The latest measure came in the form of a letter issued Friday by the U.S. Department of Education, giving K-12 schools across the country two options: to eliminate programs focused on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) within two weeks, or face unspecified cuts in federal funding.

“I fully anticipate that it will have a chilling effect on school districts, but also colleges and universities,” said Royel Johnson, who leads the University of Southern California Race and Equity Center’s National Assessment of Collegiate Campus Climates.

The Department of Education’s letter isn’t law — nor is it legal, Johnson said.

However, many advocates and community members say they are concerned that more and more districts will gut their diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives out of fear and deprive students from marginalized backgrounds of the support they need to succeed in the classroom and beyond.

“We often think about California as being protected from this larger right wing movement,” Johnson said. “But as we saw with changing patterns and demographic votes in the presidential election, I think there are many people in California who are wrestling with this conservative movement and who are afraid of it — and who are proactively or preemptively making decisions.”

‘An underlying disconnect’: The letter

The Department of Education’s letter opens with the words “Dear Colleague,” but the ensuing message takes on a different tone.

“Rather than engaging in that work of acknowledging and affirming educators, what the Trump administration has done thus far is to express hostility and disdain,” said John Rogers, a professor at UCLA’s School of Education and Information Studies and associate dean for research/public scholarship.

The letter specifically claims that white and Asian American students, including those from lower income backgrounds, have been discriminated against and that “educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon ‘systemic and structural racism.’”

Increasing schools’ scores on the Nation’s Report Card has been a justification for some of the administration’s changes, according to Rogers.

But instead of boosting student performance, Rogers maintains that the directive could “throw K-12 schools into further tumult” due to the high fiscal costs of culture wars. Just last year, conflicts surrounding race and LGBTQ+ issues cost schools more than $3 billion nationwide.

“They’re pushing superintendents and those underneath the level of the superintendency to spend time seeking out legal counsel, talking with other educational leaders, trying to figure out, ‘What do we do? What are we doing now that might be considered problematic? Do we need to take action, etc?’” Rogers said.

“All of that time and energy, and to the extent that they’re seeking out costly legal counsel, that has real costs associated with it. It’s pushing people away from the important work of improving student learning and supporting student well-being.”

While Rogers maintained that the letter was hostile in tone, he also described it as vague and confusing — a sentiment shared by many.

Rogers said: “If I was a superintendent, I would want to know: ‘Can my principals bring together a group of Asian American students to talk about whether they’ve experienced anti-Asian hate? Could my district invite African American parents to share their oral histories about growing up in my community as part of African American History Month, or, for that matter, can we even celebrate African American History Month?”

Superintendents, he said, “don’t have enough information — yet they’re being given two weeks to either take dramatic action or not, of which they have really no sense of what that would mean.”

‘Uncharted territory’ for California districts

With new, unclear circumstances on the horizon, more questions than answers are percolating through school districts across California.

Nikki Henry, spokesperson for Fresno Unified School District, said Tuesday that the district and its attorneys are reviewing the letter to understand its impact.

Fresno Unified’s school board in 2020 passed a resolution declaring the district an anti-racist institution that would “examine and confront biases” and in January reaffirmed the district as a safe place for all students, including immigrant students and families.

That mindset and approach may put Fresno Unified, which received around $238 million in federal funds this school year, in jeopardy of losing such funding under the new administration.

With nearly 93% of its students identifying as members of minority communities, the district has implemented “strong” diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, Henry said. Their DEI policy ensures that students have equitable access to the district’s programs and services, that the curriculum reflects and celebrates diversity and that there are sufficient academic, social-emotional and behavioral supports.

Further south, administrators in Los Angeles Unified, the state’s largest district, have also expressed support for students of all backgrounds — a move that is lauded by Evelyn Aleman, the organizer of Our Voice/Nuestra Voz, a bilingual Facebook group largely made up of parents and advocates.

“In terms of advocating for and supporting the difference between populations that it serves, (LAUSD])really does try to do that, so … I think we’re going to be OK. I think we have a district that gets us.”

In a statement to EdSource, a Los Angeles Unified spokesperson said the district “adheres to all federal and state law and guidance” — and that if there are discrepancies between the two, they would be resolved through the state.

However, last July, Parents Defending Education, a Virginia-based conservative group, filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights against the Los Angeles Unified School District for its Black Student Achievement Plan.

Months later, the district watered down the language surrounding the program.

And some members of LAUSD’s larger community, including United Teachers Los Angeles President Cecily Myart-Cruz, said they fear that this decision could signal how the district might respond to directives from the federal government.

“If I only had to go on that (decision regarding the Black Student Achievement Plan), then I would say I’m concerned,” Myart-Cruz said. “I believe in our students. … I know that UTLA, we’re going to stand right alongside our students and our community. … If we put resources in for our students, then it helps everyone.”

Other districts like Clovis Unified, however, maintain that they will not be impacted, according to spokesperson Kelly Avants.

Based on the way Clovis Unified is interpreting the Education Department’s letter, Avants said affected districts are likely those with hiring practices or scholarships with DEI guidelines or selection criteria based solely on race or gender.

Avants added that all Clovis Unified activities to celebrate different cultures are open to the entire student population.

“We’ve not gone one direction or the other,” Avants said. “We really have tried to be sensitive to our programs being holistic versus centrally focused.”

What’s at stake

Experts and teachers have continually emphasized that diversity, equity and inclusion programs enrich students’ learning and that they also play a critical role in students feeling like they belong.

“DEI provides mechanisms for addressing issues of safety and security for students who sometimes experience physical harm, psychological harm,” Johnson said. “But, if we start removing the very mechanisms that are designed to address these issues, we’re going to see higher reports and students having concerns around their safety at school.”

He added, “If students feel a sense of connectedness and belonging to the school environment, they’re more likely to be retained, they’re more likely to come to school on time and persist toward their goals.”

Several indicators of student success, from student attendance rates to engagement, rise when DEI programs are implemented, he said.

And in the classroom, Aleman from Our Voice/Nuestra Voz, emphasized the importance of learning about the contributions of immigrants from various backgrounds.

“We’re at a stage of global interaction that requires that we understand … the rich history and contributions of immigrants and different populations,” Aleman said. “We are a heterogeneous culture. … and we don’t understand why the administration doesn’t understand that.”

Pushing back

While the Department of Education’s letter focuses on race, civil rights protections — including through diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives — support students from various identities based on other factors, including gender, disability and age, according to Amir Whitaker, senior policy counsel of the ACLU of Southern California.

And Johnson said marginalized groups, including those who are LGBTQ+ and first generation, could also be impacted by potential cuts to DEI.

“I hope that school district leaders and leaders of college and universities will not back down from this moment — and lean into the institutional values that have animated their work for years prior to this erroneous sort of guidance that is designed to threat and intimidate,” Johnson said. “If we all roll back and back down at this moment, then our students will suffer.”

Whitaker added that the very policies that the letter cites — like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — were victories that “people fought and died for.”

The Trump administration’s action, he said, is a “a step backwards in this nation’s journey towards equality and justice.”

“If California backs down,” Johnson said, “I wonder also what message that sends to the rest of the country, that this ultra-progressive place is already making concessions and their sort of commitments to do DEI, what that might mean for less progressive places who are figuring out where they fit within this conversation.”

School district leaders should consult with their lawyers over new guidance from the U.S. Department of Education that threatens the loss of federal funding to schools that don’t end essentially any sort of race-based programming, education experts say.

The sweeping “dear colleague” letter from the head of the Education Department’s office for civil rights, sent to K-12 schools and universities that receive federal dollars on Feb. 14, is the latest effort from President Donald Trump’s administration to weed out what he labels diversity, equity, and inclusion, using the threat of cutting funds as a way to exert the federal government’s muscle on K-12 schools. The letter relies on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 2023 that struck down affirmative action in college admissions , with the department arguing the court’s ruling “applies more broadly.”

The civil rights office directs districts and colleges to cease using “race as a factor in admissions, financial aid, hiring, training, and other institutional programming.” It gives districts until March 1 before it says it will open investigations into schools and universities that don’t comply with the order. It comes on the heels of executive orders from President Trump that also have sought to curb DEI .

See Also Open image caption Close image caption President Donald Trump listens as Elon Musk speaks in the Oval Office at the White House, Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2025, in Washington. The department’s office for civil rights, which enforces federal civil rights laws in schools, has been hamstrung by the Trump administration’s goal of shrinking the agency. Alex Brandon/AP Federal Trump Shakeup Stops Most Work at Education Department’s Civil Rights Office Remove Save to favorites

Though the letter doesn’t change the underlying laws the civil rights office is charged with enforcing, it does spell out the administration’s interpretation of those laws, and what the office for civil rights’ enforcement priorities will be, said John Borkowski, a lawyer with Husch Blackwell in Chicago who represents and works with school districts.

“I think it’s important for districts to talk to their counsel and review policies and programs in potentially affected areas to make sure that they’re comfortable that they’re legally compliant,” Borkowski said.

It’s something that will have to be handled district by district, Borkowski said. Depending on where a district is located, federal courts have differed in their interpretations of federal law, and different state laws also apply.

“All of those things need to be balanced, and this [guidance] is one of the things that they’ll have to take into account,” he said. “But it’s certainly not the only thing.”

The Feb. 14 guidance is another example of how Trump’s Education Department is using its office for civil rights as a tool to carry out the president’s social agenda . In recent weeks, the civil rights office has dismissed complaints involving district book challenges and launched investigations into athletic associations that have pushed back on Trump’s executive order barring transgender girls from girls’ sports teams. At the same time, much of the office’s day-to-day work has stopped.

The “dear colleague” letter is an unmistakable sign of a DEI crackdown in schools

The letter is a “vast and unjustified expansion” of the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision, said Sumayya Saleh, associate director of educational opportunities project for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

“The letter is simply wrong that school programs advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion are presumptively illegal,” she said. “While the decision that this letter relies on was a blow to affirmative action at higher education institutions, its ruling is really quite limited and still allows for institutions to use other lawful means to advance diversity and equity, whether at the college level and certainly in the K-12 level, which that case is not even about.”

William Trachman, who served as a deputy assistant secretary in the office for civil rights in the first Trump administration and is part of the Mountain States Legal Foundation, a conservative legal advocacy group, said the letter was a “shot across the bow” for districts that have embraced DEI.

Trachman said that the first administration spent time rolling back Obama administration efforts, but this administration can make more progress.

The new guidance is “also making sure schools know there’s a new sheriff in town, and there’s going to be a robust enforcement effort on these issues,” he said.

But with the scope of the letter being quite broad, Saleh said, the “trickle-down effect is potentially catastrophic.”

“I think it’s important for school districts not to recoil or engage in self censorship, so to speak, just because this guidance has been issued,” she said. “I think it’s important for them to examine and explore what the law actually holds, not how the current administration is interpreting the law, and then consider within the bounds of what continues to be lawful, what efforts can they still take to pursue their interests of ensuring diversity and equal access on their campuses?”

Cutting off funds to school districts is a multi-step process

It’s not possible for the executive branch to unilaterally pull funding. The office for civil rights must first investigate allegations, find a violation, and also find that the school is refusing to address it. The department would then recommend a funding termination, and there would be a waiting period during which Congress could override the department’s attempt to terminate funds.

Through case law and regulation, the department can’t cut all funding to a school, either, to keep from harming innocent students and staff, and to prevent vindictive or punitive use of OCR investigations. The funding termination—which is rare—would have to target the particular program where OCR has found a violation.

School districts can also appeal funding termination decisions.

See Also Open image caption Close image caption President Donald Trump signs a document in the Oval Office at the White House, Thursday, Jan. 30, 2025, in Washington. Evan Vucci/AP Federal What’s in Trump’s New Executive Orders on Indoctrination and School Choice Remove Save to favorites

Sasha Pudelski, the director of advocacy for AASA, The School Superintendents Association, said that districts should continue to focus on doing what’s best for their students. If they feel “compelled to try and proactively avoid OCR challenges” they could focus on examining programs or activities that explicitly discuss race. But she emphasized that the guidance hasn’t changed the law.

“In light of President Trump’s efforts to diminish OCR enforcement and the legal arguments underpinning the guidance that may be challenged, districts should continue to pay attention to what’s happening at the federal level and consult with attorneys about what they need to do in response to it,” she said.

The implications of Trump’s DEI crackdown are still unclear

Though the administration has taken a harsh stance on DEI, the practical implications of its mandates have been unclear for educators.

During her U.S. Senate confirmation hearing last week, presumptive Secretary of Education Linda McMahon declined to offer specifics for how districts could interpret Trump’s executive order on “radical indoctrination,” which called on federal officials to develop plans for withholding money from K-12 schools that engage in what he calls “discriminatory equity ideology” and “gender ideology.” McMahon didn’t answer whether Black history could be taught, or whether schools could hold affinity clubs for students with shared backgrounds.

Meanwhile, more than 100 employees at the Education Department have been placed on leave or terminated due to tenuous ties to DEI work. Many had attended a diversity training held during Trump’s first term.

Elon Musk’s unofficial agency, the Department of Government Efficiency, has also slashed hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts for teacher training, claiming that they promoted DEI, anti-racism, and the examination of white privilege.

The letter from OCR, and the broader efforts from the executive branch to diminish DEI, has caused some to fear that districts will comply proactively and cut programming.

Royel Johnson, an associate professor of education at the University of Southern California, fears that the letter would scare districts to “abandon the work that so many know is important,” saying DEI is part of the puzzle to make students feel connected and safe in their schools, which has implications for student success, retention, and graduation. He hoped district leaders would “lean in” to their legal teams to understand the difference between law, guidance, and mere recommendations.

“This is much broader than ideology at this point,” Johnson continued. “This cuts across so many issues that I think we all care about, and I hope people will pay close attention to what’s happening and use every lever available to them to push back.”

President Trump recently issued several Executive Orders aimed at Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (“DEI” or “DEIA”) initiatives. This alert examines two of the orders. On January 20, the President signed an order entitled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing” (the “First Order”). On January 21, he signed an order entitled, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (the “Second Order”).

These Orders represent a dramatic shift in the DEI landscape that will impact DEI initiatives launched by public and private sector employers in recent years. DEI workplace roles have increased significantly in the last five years. Many agencies also now include DEI goals in their strategic plans, in an effort to ensure that qualified candidates, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, disability or sexual orientation have equal access to career opportunities.

How the Executive Orders will impact such programs is a complicated question. Immediate actions by the Trump administration include laying off all federal DEI personnel and directing all federal employees to remove pronouns from their signature blocks by 5:00 p.m. January 31, 2025.

The First Order

While predominately directed at agencies and employees of the federal government, the order also impacts (1) federal grantees who have received federal funding “to provide or advance DEI, DEIA, or ‘environmental justice’ programs, services, or activities since January 20, 2021,” and (2) federal contractors “who have provided DEI training or DEI training materials to agency or department employees.” As such, to the extent a public agency or private company receives federal grant funds or to the extent that a private company works as a federal contractor, its operations may be impacted.

The First Order includes the following provisions aimed at federal grantees and contractors. It dictates that, within sixty-days of the order’s issuances, federal agencies, departments, and commission heads, take the following actions.

To “terminate, to the maximum extent allowed by law… ‘equity related grants or contracts, and all DEI or DEIA performance requirements” for contractors and grantees. In other words, if a public agency or private company received an “equity-related” grant under the Biden Administration, then it may receive an order of termination from the overseeing branch of the federal government as soon as February 9, 2024. The order does not define the term “equity-related”.

To “provide the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with a list of all “[f]ederal contractors who have provided DEI training or DEI training materials to [federal] employees”, and “[f]ederal grantees who received Federal funding to provide or advance DEI, DEIA, or ‘environmental justice’ programs, services, or activities since January 20, 2021.” This provision appears aimed at populating a list of private sector providers who have contracted with the federal government to provide DEI training and materials as well as “grantees”—which could include private and public entities—who have more broadly used federal funds to advance DEI and related programs and functions. The order does not address what executive action may be pursued as to public or private entities that are identified on this list.

The First Order further directs the OPM Director and a representative from each federal agency to meet monthly to inform and advise the President on certain metrics germane to this order so that the President “may formulate appropriate and effective civil rights policies for the Executive Branch.” These metrics include to “hear reports on the prevalence and the economic and social cost of DEI, DEIA, and ‘environmental justice’ policies” in contracts and grants, as well as in a broader array of governmental functions, including with respect to “regulations, enforcement activities, and litigating positions.”

The order concludes with a directive that it is to be implemented “consistent with applicable law and subject to available appropriations.” It remains to be seen the myriad of legal issues that could arise in connection with terminating the scope of federal grants and contracts implicated.

The Second Order

The Second Order revokes several executive orders previously in effect for decades, including a 60-year-old Johnson Administration Executive Order requiring federal contractors to maintain anti-discrimination programs and engage in equal opportunity hiring practices and a 31-year-old Clinton Administration Executive Order authorizing federal action to address environmental justice in low-income and minority communities.

The Second Order prohibits federal agencies from engaging in the following in awarding government contracts: promoting diversity, requiring contractors (including subcontractors) to practice affirmative action, and encouraging workforce balancing based on inherent characteristics. It also prohibits federal contractors from considering “race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin in ways that violate the Nation’s civil rights laws.” (The order does not, however, explain the meaning of the italicized clause.) It further directs agencies to (1) “terminate all discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement actions, consent orders, and requirements”; (2) enforce longstanding civil rights laws; and (3) combat “private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.”

Within 120 days of the Second Order’s issuance, the head of every federal agency must generate a report identifying “the most egregious discriminatory DEI practitioners in each sector of concern,” within each agency’s jurisdiction, and a plan with specific steps the agency will take to deter DEI practices—including regulatory action, litigation, and other strategies to “end illegal DEI discrimination and preferences and comply with all Federal civil-rights laws.” Each agency is responsible for identifying up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of the following types of entities:

Publicly traded corporations,

Large non-profit corporations or associations,

Foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more,

State and local bar and medical associations, and

Institutions of higher education with endowments over one billion dollars.

Additionally, all state and local educational agencies receiving federal funding, including all institutions of higher education that receive federal grants or participate in the federal student loan assistance program are required to comply with the holding in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) which prohibits using race as a criterion for admission but still permits an applicant to discuss “how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.” The Harvard Court opined:

A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination. Or a benefit to a student whose heritage or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university. In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race.

Notwithstanding any of the above, the order expressly allows public and private employers to retain employment and contracting preferences for veterans of the armed forces and persons protected by the Randolph-Sheppard Act, 20 U.S.C. 107 et seq., a 1936 law aimed at providing blind persons with remunerative employment, economic opportunities, and self-support through operation of vending facilities in federal buildings.

California Law

In some respects, the executive orders are reminiscent of California’s Proposition 209, passed in 1996, with which California public agencies have been required to comply for nearly three decades. Proposition 209 amended the California Constitution to generally prohibit public colleges and universities and other government entities from discriminating or granting preference based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin as criteria in public employment, public contracting and public education, with limited exceptions including for bona fide occupational qualifications based on sex, and actions necessary to prevent loss of federal funds. Some public employers have developed DEI initiatives that are designed to be compliant with Proposition 209. Accordingly, certain existing DEI polices may comply with the Orders, while other policies may not.

A plain reading of the First and Second Orders reflects the Trump Administration’s opinion that DEI Initiatives, in principle, violate federal law. For decades, however, public and private sector employers, particular in California where Prop 209 has been state law for almost 30 years, have crafted DEI programs and policies that are in furtherance of state and federal anti-discrimination laws, as reflected under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (i.e., Title VII), the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, among others. The federal district courts, therefore, are the inevitable ground-zero for resolving these apparent conflicts, with appeals to higher courts likely as well.

Recommendations

There are many potential legal arguments to be made for and against the lawfulness of the Executive Orders. These are beyond the scope of this alert, however at least two points bear noting at this early stage.

First, “DEI” and “DEIA” are not self-defining terms, and may be defined or understood differently in different contexts by different actors, whether in favor of or opposed to such initiatives. The Executive Orders do not appear to state a single definition of what the administration considers to be “DEI” or “DEIA,” but do include a directive to federal agencies to “terminate all discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement actions, consent orders, and requirements,” and “to enforce our longstanding civil-rights laws and to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.” California has regulations requiring California community colleges to develop DEIA criteria to be applied in employee evaluations and tenure review, and the California regulations set forth many defined terms that are specific to these requirements. The mere use of terminology such as “DEI” or “DEIA” does not necessarily make a program or initiative discriminatory or illegal. The more pertinent question is what criteria a program or employer actually uses to select applicants, admit students, provide services, commit resources, etc., and whether such criteria do or do not comply with existing anti-discrimination laws, including California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and other laws prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing, education and other areas.

Second, an Executive Order has the force of law, but is subject to review by the Courts. Federal agencies also have discretion in how they interpret existing laws. As just one example, the United States Department of Education’s interpretation of Title IX has varied in recent years, depending on the administration.

For now, given the breadth of the DEI executive orders and their potential impact on the country’s workforce and various industries, we anticipate these orders will face legal challenges. But the more immediate practical question for many public agencies and other recipients of federal funds will be how federal agencies interpret and apply the executive orders. In other words, enforcement actions by federal agencies may have immediate or near-term practical consequences that cannot be reversed unless/until challenged successfully in court. In the short term, therefore, public colleges and universities, public agencies, and other recipients of federal funds should consult with counsel to review and revise their DEI programs to mitigate risk.

1. Evaluate DEI Programs and Practices

Review the content and implementation processes for DEI-related programs to avoid potential conflicts with the executive orders, including review of the content and processes of third-party vendors. Make certain any such trainings are consistent with Proposition 209 and other state and federal anti-discrimination and equal employment opportunity laws.

2. Evaluate Promotion and Hiring Practices

DEI initiatives for employers can be carried out in a lawful way, effectively navigating the executive orders while ensuring compliance with existing state and federal laws. Avoid prohibited practices, like setting specific diversity quotas or goals unless mandated by law. Audit hiring practices. Make sure criteria is based on job qualifications and performance, not prohibited demographic characteristics, and emphasizes the importance of merit-based practices. Consider whether the criteria from the Supreme Court’s recent Harvard decision could be incorporated into your hiring-related policies.

3. Evaluate Employee Policies and Procedures

Employee policies and procedures documents and/or handbooks may reference DEI initiatives or mission statements. Immediately review such documents to ensure any references to DEI-related activities comply with the executive orders to avoid the potential for possible enforcement actions.

4. Keep Detailed Records

Keep detailed records of hiring practices, training programs, and all DEI-related initiatives to demonstrate that employment practices comply with federal and state law. Openness regarding the implementation of diversity and inclusion efforts may shield potential liability.

5. Be Prepared

Stay informed about legal changes and potential shifts in judicial interpretations. Prepare to make any necessary adjustments to ensure employment practices remain legally compliant.

Both Orders are the first of several measures the Trump Administration will likely pursue on this topic. As things continue to develop, it is important to work closely with trusted legal counsel to ensure compliance with new laws and existing state and federal laws. AALRR knows how to structure DEI programs in a way that promotes inclusivity without violating anti-discrimination laws. Take the right steps now to reduce liability: review hiring practices, evaluate training content, and maintain detailed records.

Our experienced attorneys are here to help public and private sector employers navigate changes and maintain a legally compliant and inclusive place of work.

Employers with questions about any of the above may contact one of the authors or their usual counsel at AALRR.

This AALRR publication is intended for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in reaching a conclusion in a particular area of law. Applicability of the legal principles discussed may differ substantially in individual situations. Receipt of this or any other AALRR publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Firm is not responsible for inadvertent errors that may occur in the publishing process.

© 2025 Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo