MAJOR VICTORY: Fourth Circuit Upholds Trump’s Executive Orders Ending Discriminatory DEI Programs

In a resounding victory for equal treatment under the law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has issued a significant decision upholding President Trump’s Executive orders that dismantle discriminatory Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs in the federal government and federal contracting. The court’s ruling affirms that the President has the constitutional authority to end race-based preferences that violate fundamental civil rights protections.

President Trump issued Executive orders specifically targeting the pervasive DEI mandates that had infiltrated federal contracting and grant programs. Specifically, Executive Order 14,151, titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” which sought to eliminate what the Administration described as “illegal and immoral discrimination programs” operating under the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).” The order directed agency heads to terminate “equity-related” grants or contracts “to the maximum extent allowed by law.”

Take action with the ACLJ. Sign the petition: Defeat Rogue Judges – Defend the Constitution.

The following day, the President issued Executive Order 14,173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” which requires federal contractors and grant recipients to certify that they do “not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.”

As we argued in our amicus brief, these race-conscious programs violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection and federal civil rights laws. These orders sought to ensure that federal programs operate on the basis of merit and qualification – not race, sex, or other protected characteristics.

Private organizations that benefited from these discriminatory DEI requirements filed suit, claiming the President lacked authority to end these programs. They attempted to preserve a system that explicitly favored certain racial groups over others in federal contracting opportunities.

As we detailed previously, the ACLJ filed an amicus brief supporting the President’s authority to end these unconstitutional practices. We argued that DEI mandates are simply racial discrimination repackaged with trendy terminology, and they violate longstanding civil rights protections.

The Court’s Decision: Presidential Authority Affirmed

The Fourth Circuit delivered a decisive ruling. The court emphasized that the President has broad authority to set policy for federal programs and to ensure those programs comply with constitutional requirements.

The court rejected the First Amendment challenge in the case, “the Provision requires only that plaintiffs certify compliance with federal antidiscrimination laws, which the First Amendment doesn’t confer a right to violate.” The court emphasized a point we made in our briefs as well; there is no right to violate federal discrimination law through DEI programs: “Indeed, existing federal law already demands such compliance, and plaintiffs have not challenged existing law as viewpoint-discriminatory or as over or underinclusive.”

The court’s analysis underscores a fundamental truth: the President has not only the authority but the obligation to ensure that federal programs operate lawfully and constitutionally. When programs engage in racial discrimination—even under the guise of diversity initiatives—the President must act to end those violations.

Defending Constitutional Principles

Our amicus brief played a vital role in this victory. We argued forcefully that racial discrimination is an affront to the Constitution, for which the federal government has every right to deny funding.

This decision is a critical step toward restoring the principle that government programs must treat all Americans equally, regardless of race. The Fourth Circuit’s ruling affirms that the President can and should end such discriminatory practices. It sends a clear message that federal programs must operate on the basis of merit and compliance with genuine civil rights protections – not on the basis of race-conscious quotas and preferences.

This victory demonstrates that the Constitution’s promise of equal protection remains a powerful shield against government discrimination. We will continue to defend these principles in courts across the nation.