A federal judge has declined to block President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting race-based diversity programs among government contractors, ruling that the measure targets conduct already prohibited under federal anti-discrimination law.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A federal judge in Maryland ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration can continue enforcing restrictions on diversity, equity and inclusion programs involving federal contractors, rejecting a request from civil rights and business organizations to temporarily block the president’s executive order.
U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson, appointed by former President Joe Biden, concluded that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that President Donald Trump’s March 26 order unlawfully restricted constitutionally protected speech or imposed excessively broad requirements on companies receiving federal contracts.
The ruling, reported by Reuters, allows the administration to proceed with its contracting requirements while the underlying lawsuit continues.
Trump’s executive order, titled Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors, prohibits federal contractors and subcontractors from engaging in what the administration defines as “racially discriminatory DEI activities.”
The order requires covered businesses to certify their compliance with federal anti-discrimination requirements. Companies that violate those provisions could face canceled contracts, suspension from future government work or investigations under the federal False Claims Act.
The administration has argued that certain diversity initiatives unlawfully favor individuals based on race or ethnicity rather than qualifications, creating discriminatory employment and contracting practices.
Organizations representing university faculty members and minority business owners challenged the directive in April, arguing that it could discourage lawful diversity efforts and penalize constitutionally protected activities.
The plaintiffs maintained that the order was overly broad and could allow federal officials to classify legitimate efforts to increase workplace opportunities as unlawful discrimination.
Abelson rejected that interpretation when considering their request for a preliminary injunction.
“The Contractors Order only prohibits contractors from engaging in conduct that is already prohibited by federal law: intentional discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity,” the judge wrote.
He determined that the order’s definition of prohibited conduct was narrower than the plaintiffs argued and did not categorically ban diversity programs.
The ruling also emphasized that the restrictions apply to activities connected with the performance of specific federal contracts rather than every aspect of a company’s operations.
That distinction limits the order’s reach and addresses concerns that contractors could be penalized for unrelated organizational activities.
The plaintiffs are represented by Democracy Forward, a progressive legal organization that has challenged several Trump administration policies.
Despite the denial of their injunction request, the organization emphasized that the court’s interpretation provides important protections for contractors seeking to maintain lawful diversity initiatives.
“And the court confirmed that order reaches no further than the work a contractor performs for the government on the specific contract where the language appears,” Democracy Forward said in a statement.
The organization argued that the decision clarified that companies are not required to abandon all diversity programs to remain eligible for federal contracts.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Wednesday’s ruling.
The case is one of several legal challenges involving Trump’s efforts to eliminate diversity initiatives across the federal government and organizations receiving taxpayer funding.
A separate lawsuit filed by 19 Democratic-led states and Washington, D.C., is pending before the same federal court. That case challenges the administration’s authority to modify federal contracting requirements under the March order.
The lawsuits reflect broader disagreements over whether diversity initiatives help correct longstanding inequities or improperly favor certain groups based on race and other protected characteristics.
Civil rights organizations have argued that properly designed DEI programs can expand opportunities for women, racial minorities, LGBTQ individuals and other historically underrepresented groups without violating federal law.
Trump and other conservative officials maintain that employment and contracting decisions should be based on individual qualifications and merit rather than demographic characteristics.
Since returning to the White House in January 2025, Trump has moved to eliminate DEI programs within federal agencies and rescinded a 1965 executive order requiring federal contractors to maintain affirmative action programs involving minorities and women.
The March 2026 directive expanded those efforts by establishing specific contractual requirements intended to prevent racial discrimination in federally funded work.
The regulations affect a broad range of industries, including defense, technology, transportation, construction and government services, where businesses often depend on federal contracts for substantial portions of their revenue.
The consequences could be significant for companies found to have violated the requirements, particularly because the False Claims Act permits financial penalties when contractors knowingly submit false certifications connected to government payments.
However, Wednesday’s ruling does not establish that any particular diversity program violates federal law, nor does it resolve the ultimate legality of Trump’s order.
Instead, the court determined that the plaintiffs had not met the legal standard required to block enforcement while their lawsuit proceeds.
The administration can therefore continue implementing the restrictions, while federal contractors must distinguish between lawful diversity initiatives and practices that constitute intentional discrimination under existing civil rights laws.
Original article
Comments