Estimated read time: 2-3 minutes
- Federal judges blocked President Donald Trump's plan to cut school funds over diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.
- Judges ruled the policy violated free speech and was unconstitutionally vague.
- The Education Department may appeal, citing civil rights law compliance concerns.
WASHINGTON — Federal judges in Maryland and New Hampshire on Thursday blocked Republican President Donald Trump's administration from following through on threats to cut off funding to public schools that engage in diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.
The dual rulings came in lawsuits by teachers unions who sued to prevent the U.S. Department of Education from cutting funding to K-12 schools and universities that did not cease what it called "discriminatory" diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
The Education Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but the administration is likely to appeal both decisions.
The policy at issue was outlined in a Feb. 14 "Dear Colleague" letter from the Education Department that the administration said was intended to remind schools that receive federal funding of their obligations to comply with existing civil rights law.
The letter said schools in recent years had embraced "pervasive and repugnant race-based preferences" and "toxically indoctrinated" students by teaching about the history of systemic racism.
The letter said diversity, equity and inclusion proponents had been "smuggling" such practices into everyday training, programming, and discipline, and the department advised schools that it would take action against them if they did not ensure their practices followed the law.
But U.S. District Judge Landya McCafferty in Concord, New Hampshire, sided with the National Education Association, the largest teachers union, and two other groups in finding the policy was unconstitutionally vague and violated educators' free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.
McCafferty, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, said that while the letter made clear the department's view that diversity, equity and inclusion programs violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it never defined what a diversity, equity and inclusion program even was.
"(Diversity, equity and inclusion) as a concept is broad: One can imagine a wide range of viewpoints on what the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion mean when describing a program or practice," she wrote.
She said the policy infringed on the First Amendment rights of university professors, as well by targeting their speech based on viewpoint if they, for example, teach students about structural racism in America.
Shortly after McCafferty ruled, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher in Baltimore issued an order similarly halting the Education Department's policy at the behest of the American Federation of Teachers, the American Sociological Association and others.
Gallagher, a Trump appointee from his first term in office, said the Education Department failed to follow proper rulemaking processes and lacked the authority to adopt the policy under the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979.
That law bars the Education Department from directing or supervising a school's curriculum, instructional program, administration or personnel or its selection of instructional materials like textbooks.
Skye Perryman, whose liberal-leaning legal group Democracy Forward represented the plaintiffs in the Maryland case, in a statement said the ruling "affirms what we have always known: This administration's attempts to censor schools, teachers, educators, colleges, and universities is unlawful."
