US civil rights groups sue Trump administration over DEI orders

The lawsuit claimed that President Donald Trump's executive orders requiring a halt to spending on diversity initiatives throughout the federal government violated several provisions of the Constitution, including the First and Fifth Amendments, and intentionally discriminated against Black and transgender people.

Washington: Civil rights organizations sued the Trump administration Wednesday over a series of executive orders targeting diversity, equity and inclusion programs and gender discrimination protections.

They alleged that the orders were discriminatory and illegal, and imperiled funding for groups that provide critical services to historically underserved groups of Americans.

The lawsuit was filed in US District Court for the District of Columbia by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and Lambda Legal. It claimed that President Donald Trump's executive orders requiring a halt to spending on diversity initiatives throughout the federal government violated several provisions of the Constitution, including the First and Fifth Amendments, and intentionally discriminated against Black and transgender people.

The lawsuit also accused Trump of exceeding his authority in issuing the orders, which extend to federal contractors and grant recipients, and said they ran afoul of laws that require the executive branch to follow certain steps when it wanted to change policies.

"While the president may have his viewpoint, as flawed and discriminatory as it may be, the First Amendment bars him from unduly imposing his viewpoint on federal contractors and grantees so that plaintiffs are forced to either violate their organizational missions or risk losing the federal funding that is vitally necessary, and even sometimes lifesaving, for the communities they serve," the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three groups: the National Urban League, National Fair Housing Alliance and the AIDS Foundation of Chicago. For decades, they have received federal grants to help historically marginalized communities receive social, health and economic services.

The 101-page complaint outlined how Trump's orders not only undermined the organizations' missions, but also threatened their very existence, should they comply.

"That choice is nearly an impossible one: While plaintiffs cannot perform their work without addressing views and ongoing concerns related to the communities they serve, they also rely on federal funding to do that work," the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit is the latest legal challenge against the barrage of executive actions Trump has taken to gut programs and slash funding since he took office.

Among his most aggressive orders were the ones that mandated the immediate purge of "wasteful" and "harmful" diversity and equity programs, and hiring practices that sought to reverse the effects of systemic discrimination against women, minorities and people with disabilities. Another order sought to eradicate "gender ideology extremism" by declaring that the federal government would recognize only two sexes, male and female, that were assigned at birth.

The orders were part of Trump's pledge to return to a "colorblind" and "merit based" society, and "end the government policy of trying to socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life."

The lawsuit is the second filed against the Trump administration for its orders targeting DEI efforts. Groups representing college professors and school diversity officers sued the administration this month, making similar arguments.

In a statement Wednesday, Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, called the lawsuits "nothing more than an extension of the left's resistance" and said the administration was "ready to face them in court."

"Radical leftists can either choose to swim against the tide and reject the overwhelming will of the people, or they can get on board and work with President Trump to advance his wildly popular agenda," Fields said.

The new lawsuit claims that Trump's orders are so vague -- not even defining the terms they ban -- that the plaintiffs are left open to "unfettered discretion" and arbitrary interpretations, violating their rights to due process. It also contends that the orders are so broad that they chill free speech, and so targeted that there is "clear discriminatory purpose in violation of equal protection."

"The three orders we are challenging today perpetuate false and long-standing stereotypes that Black people and other underrepresented groups lack skills, talent and merit -- willfully ignoring the discriminatory barriers that prevent a true meritocracy from flourishing," Janai Nelson, the president of the defense fund, said in a statement.

Jose Abrigo, Lambda Legal's HIV project director and lead counsel on the case, said in a statement that "these policies drip with contempt for transgender people, and pose a significant threat to critical health and HIV services that support marginalized communities, putting lives at risk." He added that the two organizations teamed up because "the fights to end racism, the HIV epidemic and anti-transgender bias are inseparable."

The National Urban League, one of the nation's largest and oldest civil rights organizations that focuses on economic mobility in the Black community through workforce development trainings and programs, would see "catastrophic" effects on its community should it lose funding, the complaint said. Many of its programs are supported by the Labor Department, and the organization currently has 19 active federal grants, totaling $62 million and accounting for 35% of its annual budget.

"The assault on diversity, equity and inclusion is discriminatory at best and an attempt at institutionalized economic oppression at its worst," Marc Morial, the league's president, said in a statement.

The National Fair Housing Alliance, a civil rights group that works to eliminate housing and lending discrimination, and receives grant support from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, would be required to stop using words that are embedded in the laws that it helps people navigate. It received a stop-work order last month as a result of the DEI order. A follow-up email from the department informed the alliance that grants with the words "underserved," "affirmatively," "systemic," "adversely," "accessible" and "disparate," among others, would be scrutinized.

The organization is set to receive approximately $2.5 million in federal funding for the 2025 fiscal year, and some of its funding is statutorily required by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, signed by President Ronald Reagan.

"The administration's illegal actions put all people in harm's way, driving up the cost of housing and leaving millions exposed to discrimination, harassment and retaliation with no structure for protection," Lisa Rice, the alliance's president and CEO, said in a statement.

The AIDS Foundation of Chicago receives a majority of its funding from the federal health and housing departments, the lawsuit said, about $35 million annually. The funding provides a range of services, including HIV prevention, treatment and case management, and supportive housing programs for people living with HIV.

The group noted in the lawsuit that 8.5% of its clients were "transgender, nonbinary or genderqueer," identities that Trump has written out of federal recognition.

The revocation of federal funding would require the foundation to cease operating, cutting off services for nearly 7,000 people, including 1,300 households that currently receive housing assistance.

"The federal government's attempt to silence HIV service providers is not just unconstitutional," the lawsuit said. "It is deadly."