Fourth Circuit Reinstates Enforcement of Trump’s DEI Executive Orders

Kilpatrick has published a blog post on the Fourth Circuit panel’s reinstatement of key provisions from the Trump Administration’s Executive Orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in the federal government and private sector.

The decision in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, et al. v. Trump stayed a prior nationwide injunction issued by a federal district court in Maryland that had blocked enforcement of three major components of the orders on constitutional grounds, including vagueness and First Amendment concerns. The most recent decision allows federal agencies to move forward with anti-DEI-related enforcement while the appeal is pending.

The case arose after Trump sought to dismantle DEI programs by terminating DEI-related federal grants and contracts, requiring certifications from contractors affirming they do not promote DEI, and empowering agencies to target “illegal DEI” in the private sector.

With the stay in effect, federal agencies may now:

• Terminate DEI-related grants within 60 days
• Require federal contractors to present certifications demonstrating that they do not operate programs promoting DEI
• Enforce actions against private sector organizations

Simultaneously, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Justice issued new guidance, clarifying that “illegal DEI” includes any employment practice that uses protected characteristics in decisions involving leadership, mentoring, or classification.

The guidance also emphasizes that traditional diversity justifications do not override anti-discrimination laws.

For lawyers advising clients, especially federal contractors, this development signals an urgent need to reevaluate DEI-related policies, certifications, and practices.

For the time being, organizations must navigate a complex regulatory landscape where federal, state, and local DEI mandates may conflict.

Compliance efforts should focus on neutral policies that withstand scrutiny while tracking emerging case law related to discrimination, including the Supreme Court’s pending decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services.