An appeals court ruled Friday that, contrary to what a previous judge had ruled, there was no constitutional right to bear DEI.
According to Reuters, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in Richmond, Virginia sided with President Donald Trump and his administration, positing that a ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs ordered by the White House was likely constitutional.
While the ruling from the court was a mixed blessing — two of the three judges also wrote a separate opinion that DEI policies aren’t unconstitutional — the move means that the administration can move forward with a suite of programs that would end programs at federal agencies and entities which receive federal funds.
“This is a difficult case that will benefit from more sustained attention than we can give it in the present posture,” wrote Judge Pamela Harris, who was appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama, according to The Wall Street Journal.
“But for now, I believe the government has shown a sufficient likelihood of success to warrant a stay until we can hear and decide its appeal.”
She was joined in that opinion by Judge Albert Diaz, who also felt that the final decision might depend on implementation and not the basics.
“Despite the vitriol now being heaped on DEI, people of good faith who work to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion deserve praise, not opprobrium,” Diaz wrote.
The third judge, Trump appointee Allison Jones Rushing, said in a separate opinion that the government was likely to succeed in making its constitutional arguments about DEI.
The case was initially filed by the city council of Baltimore, with three other co-plaintiffs. All four receive federal funding and have DEI-promoting initiatives.
Should Trump legally be allowed to end all DEI programs?
Trump, the Baltimore city council said in its lawsuit, “cannot usurp Congress’s exclusive power of the purse, nor can he silence those who disagree with him by threatening them with the loss of federal funds and other enforcement actions.”
Biden appointee Judge Adam Abelson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland agreed in February, writing that the orders may violate the First Amendment.
“As Plaintiffs put it, ‘efforts to foster inclusion have been widespread and uncontroversially legal for decades,’” Abelson wrote in his decision, according to Reuters. “Plaintiffs’ irreparable harms include widespread chilling of unquestionably protected speech.”
Deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller argued that DEI programs violate the Civil Rights Act by illegally discriminating against individuals to promote women and minorities.
“A judge cannot nullify the Civil Rights Act and order the government to award federal taxpayer dollars to organizations that discriminate based on race,” Miller said at the time.
The 4th Circuit’s findings seemed to indicate that court didn’t buy the First Amendment defense.
In addition, Rushing’s opinion said that policy preferences on the court have little to do with the lawfulness or constitutionality of the executive orders.
“A judge’s opinion that DEI programs ‘deserve praise, not opprobrium’ should play absolutely no part in deciding this case,” Rushing wrote.
However, the decision would only allow the administration to temporarily implement its ban on the programs; the lower court’s decision “will remain in place pending the outcome of the Trump administration’s appeal, which could take months,” Reuters noted.
Nevertheless, it’s a big win for the Trump administration: three judges, two appointed by Obama, admitting the truth about the legality of the DEI purge while the left argues that discrimination somehow equals free speech. The battle might not be over, but it’s one heck of a W to notch for the new president.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
