Resources
Additional Information
-
Incident Nature:
Other
-
Incident Political Orientation:
Not Clear -
Incident Responses:
Litigation
-
Incident Status:
In litigation Federal District Court
- Was Speech Code incident
Summary
On April 20, 2026, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE), the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), United Academics of Maryland–University of Maryland, College Park (UAM–UMD), the National Association of Minority Contractors (NAMC), and the NAMC District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia Chapter filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland challenging President Donald Trump’s March 26, 2026 executive order titled “Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors.” The plaintiffs, represented by Democracy Forward, alleged that the executive order unlawfully restricted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) related activities by federal contractors and subcontractors.
The lawsuit stemmed from the March 26, 2026 issuance of the executive order, which directed federal agencies to require contractors to certify compliance with federal civil rights laws and include contract provisions stating that contractors did not engage in what the administration described as “illegal DEI discrimination.” The order instructed agencies to review federal contracts and take enforcement actions against contractors that failed to comply. The administration stated that the order was intended to ensure that federal funds were not used to support discriminatory practices.
In the April 20, 2026 complaint, the plaintiffs argued that the executive order restricted protected speech, academic freedom, and associational rights by limiting programs, research, training, and discussions involving race, diversity, equity, and inclusion. The complaint alleged that the order violated the First Amendment by imposing viewpoint based restrictions, violated Fifth Amendment due process protections because its requirements were vague and overbroad, and exceeded presidential authority by imposing conditions on federal contracts that were not authorized by Congress. The plaintiffs argued that the order created uncertainty for organizations receiving federal funding and placed them at risk of losing contracts based on their DEI related activities.
The plaintiffs included organizations representing higher education professionals, faculty members, and minority contractors. NADOHE and AAUP stated that the order affected individuals and institutions engaged in diversity and inclusion initiatives, while NAMC organizations represented contractors participating in federally funded projects. On June 4, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent enforcement of the executive order while the case proceeded. On June 25, 2026, the federal government filed an opposition to the motion, arguing that the executive order was lawful and that the plaintiffs had not established grounds for preliminary relief. The government maintained that the order addressed unlawful discrimination in federal contracting and did not prohibit lawful speech or activities.
