A federal judge in California has blocked the Trump administration’s push to attach anti-DEI strings to federal grant money. The court ruled this week that the executive branch overstepped its constitutional authority by imposing the conditions on a group of West Coast cities and counties.
Obama-nominated U.S. District Judge William Orrick granted a preliminary injunction Thursday barring the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice and the Interior from enforcing the contested conditions against 11 local governments, concluding in a 68-page order that the restrictions likely run afoul of both the separation-of-powers doctrine and the Administrative Procedure Act.
“What defendants seek to do likely violates the Constitution (separation of powers and Spending Clause) and the Administrative Procedures Act,” Orrick wrote.
The suit was filed by the cities of Fresno, Santa Clara, Redwood City, Santa Cruz, Stockton, Beaverton, Corvallis and Hillsboro, along with Los Angeles, San Diego and Santa Barbara counties, all of which argued the administration attached ideological requirements to grants Congress had already approved for public safety, disaster preparedness, policing, fire protection, water conservation and crime victim services.
Orrick sided with the localities, finding the new certification requirements “have nothing to do with or contradict the Congressional purpose” behind the underlying grant programs, and affirming that spending authority ultimately rests with Congress rather than the White House.
“Plaintiffs maintain that ‘[n]othing in the Constitution or federal statutes authorizes Defendants to impose the Challenged Conditions, or anything of the kind, on funds administered through congressional grant programs,'” Orrick wrote. “I agree.”
The conditions at issue required grant recipients to certify they were not running programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion in violation of federal anti-discrimination law, along with separate provisions encouraging cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and compliance with related executive orders.
The administration has said such conditions are a legitimate use of executive authority to ensure federal dollars aren’t used to fund discriminatory practices, and the Justice Department is expected to appeal Thursday’s ruling.
Orrick found that letting the conditions stand while the case proceeds would jeopardize funding for programs including anti-terrorism initiatives, disaster mitigation, flood protection, wildfire preparedness, law enforcement training, forensic science, and human trafficking and crime-victim services — writing that the disruption would “irreparably injure plaintiffs and their ability to provide critical services, as well as would threaten public safety.”
The preliminary injunction will remain in effect while the underlying lawsuit moves forward, leaving the administration’s broader anti-DEI funding strategy in legal limbo pending the expected appeal.