The Trump Administration has issued a series of Anti-DEI Executive Orders, and the Department of Education (“ED”) has taken steps to align their efforts with the administration’s priorities. On February 14, 2025, ED published a Dear Colleague Letter, that sought to explain the Department of Education’s interpretation of Title VI. ED then published their FAQs About Racial Preferences and Stereotypes Under Title VI guidance to further explain their position set forth in the Dear Colleague Letter. ED asserted that racially discriminatory practices have been used under the banner of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and are illegal under Title VI. They also created an End DEI Portal, where community members could report alleged discriminatory practices at schools for investigation.
On April 3, 2025, ED published a press release requesting certification from state education agencies to certify compliance with the Department’s interpretation of the legal obligations under Title VI and Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard. In response, the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce required every school district to certify their compliance, and submit such certifications by April 18, 2025. ED has indicated that any school that fails to certify their compliance with the Department’s interpretation of Title VI, as applied to DEI programs, may face harsh penalties, including termination of federal funding, litigation for breach of contract by the Department of Justice, or liability under the False Claims Act.
Multiple legal challenges have ensued to challenge ED’s guidance and request for certification. On April 24, 2025, three federal courts published decisions blocking ED’s anti-DEI actions to varying degrees. In NAACP v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., a District Court in Washington D.C. granted a nationwide injunction preventing ED from implementing or enforcing the Title VI certification requirement. A Maryland District Court stayed the Dear Colleague Letter and the Frequently Asked Questions guidance until the case can be heard on the merits in AFT v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ. And in NEA v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., a New Hampshire District Court granted the National Education Association’s motion for preliminary injunction, which prevents ED from enforcing and implementing the February 14, 2025 Dear Colleague Letter, the February 28, 2025 FAQs About Racial Preferences and Stereotypes Under Title VI, the End DEI Portal, and the April 3, 2025 Request for Certification. But the scope of that injunction’s protections are limited to the plaintiffs and entities that contract with, or employ members of, the plaintiff organizations. These cases are discussed in more detail below.
For now, the most significant and immediate take away for K-12 school districts is that ED’s Title VI compliance certification requirement and related enforcement actions have been blocked on a nationwide basis for the time being. Litigation and/or appeals will no doubt proceed, and Districts should continue to monitor developments and consult with counsel.
NAACP v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., No. 1:25cv1120: D.C. District Court Blocks Implementation and Enforcement of the Request for Certification on a Nationwide Basis
On April 24, 2025, the District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction on a nationwide basis to halt the implementation and enforcement of the Request for Certification. The court granted the preliminary injunction based on the likelihood of success of plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment Due Process claims. The court reasoned that the Title VI guidance underlying the Request for Certification places a particular emphasis on “certain DEI practices” but fails to provide an actionable definition of what constitutes “DEI” or a “DEI” practice, or delineate between lawful and unlawful DEI practices. In addition, schools face “serious consequences for [their] failure to comply with vaguely-defined prohibitions on DEI initiatives,” including termination of federal funding, breach of contract suits brought by the Department of Justice, and liability under the False Claims Act. The court highlighted in particular the gravity of the False Claims Act threat, as the Certification document “purports to stipulate to the element of materiality in a false claims action, which concretely alters schools’ litigation posture and susceptibility to monetary penalties.” As a result, the court found that plaintiffs had adequately demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and public interest in favor of issuing the injunction based on their Due Process claim against the Request for Certification.
The Court rejected plaintiffs’ other claims for injunctive relief, based on First Amendment free speech protections (failed to demonstrate standing), the Administrative Procedure Act (demonstrated standing, but not likelihood of success on the merits), and Fifth Amendment Due Process as to the Dear Colleague Letter and FAQs (failed to demonstrate standing).
The injunction states that ED “shall not impose any consequences on any entity or individual subject to the Certification for failing to submit a certification,” and “shall not initiate any enforcement action…arising out of any representation made or assurance given by such entity or individual in complying with the Certification.” Under this Order, all K-12 schools (regardless of whether a school has submitted the Request for Certification) are protected by the preliminary injunction while it is effective. ED is likely to appeal the injunction, so Districts should work with counsel and stay appraised of legal updates in the meantime.
AFT v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., No. 1:25-cv-00628: Maryland District Court Stays the Dear Colleague Letter Until APA Challenges are Decided on the Merits
In this case, plaintiffs filed separate preliminary injunction motions to prevent enforcement of the Dear Colleague Letter and the Request for Certification. On April 24, 2025, the Maryland District Court denied the preliminary injunction regarding the Request for Certification, but granted some relief related to the Letter. The court declined to review the Request for Certification for procedural reasons, namely, the Amended Complaint failed to set forth facts related to the Request for Certification. The court also reasoned that adequate relief could be achieved by operation of plaintiffs’ claims against the Letter.
In reviewing the Letter, the court found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the Letter violated the Administrative Procedure Act based on four arguments: (1) as a legislative rule, the Letter should have been subject to notice and comment rulemaking; (2) the Letter is not in accordance with law because it attempts to exercise control over the content of curriculum; (3) the Letter is arbitrary and capricious because ED failed to acknowledge its change in position, promulgate the Letter through the necessary procedures, and consider numerous factors that are required under the APA; and (4) portions of the Letter are contrary to the First Amendment. The court found that plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable harm resulting from the Letter, and that the public interest and balance of equities favored plaintiffs.
But instead of enjoining the Dear Colleague Letter, the Maryland District Court stayed its enforcement until the legal challenges to the Letter are decided on their merits. The court was mindful of granting “the narrowest relief possible to protect the Plaintiffs from irreparable injury,” and explained that a stay will preserve the status quo (and postpone the Letter’s effective date) until a final resolution under the APA is reached.
NEA v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., No. 1:25cv91: New Hampshire District Court Blocks Enforcement of Title VI Guidance for Plaintiffs’ Members & Affiliates
On April 24, 2025, the New Hampshire District Court granted the National Education Association’s motion for preliminary injunction, which prevents ED and its personnel from enforcing and/or implementing certain guidance about Title VI that ED has promulgated. Specifically, the preliminary injunction applies to the February 14, 2025 Dear Colleague Letter, the February 28, 2025 FAQs About Racial Preferences and Stereotypes Under Title VI, the End DEI Portal, and the April 3, 2025 Request for Certification.
Importantly, this is not a nationwide injunction. The injunction applies only to the NEA and the Center for Black Educator Development, “their members, and any entity that employs, contracts with, or works with one or more plaintiffs or one or more of plaintiffs’ members.”
In granting the preliminary injunction, the court reasoned that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that the Dear Colleague Letter is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Letter infringes upon the First Amendment rights of college and university educators, and the Letter violates the Administrative Procedure Act in four ways: (1) the Letter is contrary to constitutional rights; (2) issuing the Letter (which attempts to control the content of what schools teach their students) exceeded the ED’s statutory authority; (3) the Letter is contrary to laws that prohibit ED from exercising control over schools’ curricula; and (4) the Letter (a legislative rule) did not conform to notice-and-comment requirements. The court also found that plaintiffs’ members face irreparable harm through self-censorship of protected speech and acting against their organizational missions and core activities. Because no public interest exists with respect to the enforcement of unconstitutional laws, the balance of equities and public interest also weighed in favor of granting the injunction.
What’s Next?
For now, these rulings mean that K-12 school districts are not required to provide the Title VI compliance certification that ED requested. And ED is prohibited from implementing or taking enforcement action with respect to its February 14 Dear College Letter, the FAQs, and the Request for Certification. However, litigation will continue in these cases, likely including appeals. Each of the courts reached their conclusions for different reasons, and there is still significant uncertainty regarding the eventual outcome. School districts should continue to carefully monitor developments and work closely with counsel to develop a strategy with respect to DEI-related policies, programs, and practices.
Please reach out to Russell Rendall, Rebecca Singer-Miller, or any of the attorneys in Weston Hurd’s Education Law Group to discuss further. We would be happy to assist your administrative teams in navigating these complex challenges.
