The U.S. Department of Education issued a “Dear Colleague Letter” on February 14, 2025, followed by related Frequently Asked Questions, (FAQs) and a school district Certification requirement (Certification Requirement document attached below), asserting that many diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in federally funded schools violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by promoting racial discrimination or stereotyping. These actions sparked legal challenges from educational organizations and advocacy groups, resulting in three federal court rulings that halted enforcement of the guidance due to constitutional and procedural violations. While this impacts federal anti-DEI guidance and reporting requirements, Texas DEI scrutiny and prohibitions are unaffected, and districts should proceed accordingly. Below is a summary of the claims and rulings:

In Nat'l Educ. Ass'n v. United States Dep't of Educ., No.25-CV-091-LM, 2025 WL 1188160 (D.N.H. Apr. 24, 2025), the National Education Association (NEA), NEA-New Hampshire (NEA-NH), and Center for Black Educator Development (CBED) challenged the Dear Colleague Letter, FAQs, End DEI Portal, and Certification Requirement. They alleged the letter was unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment, failing to define “DEI” or prohibited conduct, and risking arbitrary enforcement. They also claimed it violated the First Amendment by targeting viewpoints like systemic racism, coercing schools to censor teachers, and breached the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by exceeding statutory authority, bypassing notice-and-comment rulemaking, and being arbitrary and capricious.

The federal district court in New Hampshire granted a preliminary injunction, finding the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claims. The court ruled the letter’s vagueness and viewpoint discrimination violated constitutional protections, and its imposition of new obligations without proper procedure violated the APA. The injunction barred enforcement against the plaintiffs, their members, and related entities, citing irreparable harm from self-censorship and mission impairment.

In Am. Fed'n of Teachers v. Dep't of Educ., No. CVSAG-25-628, 2025 WL 1191844 (D. Md. Apr. 24, 2025), the American Federation of Teachers, American Sociological Association, AFT-Maryland, and Eugene School District 4J contested the same Dear Colleague Letter and Certification Requirement. They argued the letter was a legislative rule requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking, which exceeded the Department’s authority by controlling curricula, and was arbitrary and capricious. They also claimed it violated the First Amendment by chilling classroom speech on topics like systemic racism, and was unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment.

The Maryland federal judge granted a stay of the letter under the APA, finding it likely an unlawful legislative rule that controlled curricula and restricted protected speech. However, the court denied an injunction against the Certification Requirement, as it was not included in the complaint’s claims, and declined to enjoin the FAQs or End DEI Portal, which lacked finality. The stay applied universally, preserving the status quo pending further litigation.

In Nat'l Ass'n for Advancement of Colored People v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., No. 25-CV-1120 (DLF), 2025 WL 1196212 (D.D.C. Apr. 24, 2025),the NAACP, representing Black students, challenged the Dear Colleague Letter, FAQs, and Certification Requirement, alleging they violated students’ First Amendment rights to receive information and to associate, were unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment, and violated the APA by bypassing notice-and-comment and being contrary to law.

The D.C. district court judge granted a preliminary injunction against the Certification Requirement, finding it unconstitutionally vague for failing to define prohibited DEI practices and by risking arbitrary penalties like False Claims Act liability. The court denied relief on First Amendment claims for lack of standing, as school actions were influenced by independent factors, and on APA claims, finding the documents interpretive rather than legislative. The injunction solely targeted the Certification Requirement, protecting students from its immediate harms.

These rulings underscore judicial scrutiny of the Department’s DEI guidance, emphasizing constitutional protections for free speech and due process, as well as APA compliance. While the courts varied in scope—enjoining specific components or staying the letter entirely—they collectively halted enforcement, citing vagueness, procedural flaws, and threats to educational speech. These decisions preserve existing DEI programs from federal action, but they do not impact Texas’ scrutiny, investigation or enforcement under state legal requirements. Should any questions arise about this or any other legal questions, districts should consult with their counsel.  

Author:  Hans Graff

‍