Injunction Junction: What’s Your Function? Court Clarifies Ruling on DEI Executive Orders

Yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland clarified its preliminary injunction against certain provisions that attempt to eradicate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.

The injunction applies to all executive agencies, the court ruled.

The case challenged three specific provisions of these orders, which the court found to be unconstitutional in an eight-page opinion, courtesy of our friends at Law360.

Here’s the tea on what went down and what it means for employers.

Haven’t We Been Here Before?

Yes, you may remember that on February 21, 2025, the federal court issued a preliminary injunction against three provisions of executive orders, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity and Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, aimed at federal executive agencies and departments:

1.   Termination Provision, which allowed the government to terminate grants or contracts based on vague criteria;

2.   Certification Provision, which required federal contractors and grantees to certify compliance with certain DEI standards; and

3.   Enforcement Threat Provision, which threatened enforcement actions against entities not complying with the DEI standards.

Last month, the same court found these provisions to be unconstitutional, violating the First Amendment’s free speech protections and the Fifth Amendment’s due process protections.

What Did The Judge Clarify Here And What’s the Relevance?

Fast forward to March 10, 2025, and the court issued a memorandum opinion to clarify its preliminary injunction. 

The plaintiffs wanted to know if the injunction applied to all federal executive agencies, departments, and commissions, even those not named as defendants in the case. The court said, “Yes, it does.”

In ruling that the injunction applies to all federal executive branch agencies and departments (not just the ones named in the lawsuit), the court emphasized that because the unconstitutional provisions were directives from the President to all these entities, limiting the injunction to only the named defendants would be like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound—it would not provide complete relief to the plaintiffs and would create inconsistent enforcement across different agencies.

Image by Arek Socha from Pixabay

The court cited several legal precedents to justify its decision. It pointed out that while an appeal is pending, a district court can modify an injunction to clarify it, especially if it helps the appellate process. 

And, the court noted that the plaintiffs had shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits—meaning the challenged provisions were likely unconstitutional on their face—a key factor required for injunctive relief.

Employer Whiplash

The federal court clarified that its order, nationwide in scope, prevents the Administration from ending equity-related grants or contracts and from asking federal contractors or grantees to certify that they are not promoting DEI (though the attorney general is still able to investigate DEI programs). Stay updated as these legal actions move through the courts.