The DEI Battle Continues: District Court Denies Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction

On May 1, 2025, the latest development unfolded in the ongoing battle between the Trump administration and certain trade groups challenging the validity of the president’s executive orders on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives (“DEI Orders”).

How Did We Get Here?

As discussed in a prior alert, on February 21, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland entered a preliminary injunction halting the enforcement of certain provisions of President Trump’s DEI Orders. The district court found that the challengers had a substantial likelihood of success in proving that provisions of those Orders would violate the First Amendment’s protection of free speech and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process. Of particular concern were the apparent intent of the Orders to stymie disfavored viewpoints and the lack of clarity about which programs and initiatives would even qualify as “DEI.”

The Trump administration appealed, and on March 14, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted the administration’s motion to stay the preliminary injunction. Each of the Fourth Circuit judges on the panel issued an individual opinion on why the motion to stay would be granted. The common thread among those opinions was that, while the DEI Orders were acceptably narrow to allay immediate constitutional concerns, constitutional issues could arise depending on how the DEI Orders were enforced by the administration.

What Happened?

In response to this development, the challengers to the DEI Orders took a creative procedural strategy. Relying on the Fourth Circuit’s recognition of the potential for the DEI Orders to be enforced unconstitutionally, the challengers asked the district court to vacate its preliminary injunction and let the challengers amend their complaint to add a new claim and incorporate further factual developments. Essentially, the challengers asked for a “do-over” to leverage what they believed were instances of unconstitutional enforcement of the DEI Orders.

In a painstakingly reasoned order, the district court denied the motion and left its injunction in place — although that injunction remains stayed for the time being by the Fourth Circuit’s ruling. The district court reiterated its belief that the challengers had shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits, and noted that the court itself remained “deeply troubled” that the DEI Orders “have the inherent and ineluctable effect of silencing speech that has long been, and remains, protected by the First Amendment.”

Nevertheless, the district court was unpersuaded by the challengers’ claims that they could plead new and enhanced theories in an amended complaint, noting that the proposed amendments “would be largely the same” as the relief already asserted. The district court also noted the challengers’ admission that the new injunction they would seek would be subject to only “small changes” over the current injunction. Consequently, the court concluded that the challengers did not meet the required standard to show new evidence or claims that would justify the vacating of the preliminary injunction.

What’s Next?

Had the district court granted the dissolution of the preliminary injunction, it would have effectively set the case back to zero, with a new complaint and a new application for an injunction to be sought by the challengers. Since the court denied the challengers’ motion, the case will continue in its current path. That means that the fate of the preliminary injunction initially issued in February 2025 will be decided by the Fourth Circuit. Briefing on the appeal is ongoing. We will continue to monitor the progress of this case as it winds its way through the judicial process.