Civil and human rights organizations have teamed up to file a lawsuit against the Trump administration over the president’s executive orders on diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA) and transgender rights.
National Urban League v. Trump, filed Wednesday by the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund (LDF) and Lambda Legal, argues President Trump’s orders violate the plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to free speech by censoring their views on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. It adds that the orders severely limit organizations’ ability to provide social and health services such as HIV treatment, fair housing, equal employment opportunities and civil rights protections.
“The assault on diversity, equity, and inclusion is discriminatory at best and an attempt at institutionalized economic oppression at its worst,” said Marc H. Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League.
Trump has signed multiple executive orders aimed at terminating DEIA efforts in the federal government, including the military. He has said his administration would “forge a society that is colorblind and merit-based,” and labeled “so-called” DEIA programs “dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences.”
The suit pushes back on Trump’s claims, arguing DEIA programs “address longstanding, discriminatory barriers and disadvantages to help members of underrepresented groups fully participate in our society and have equal access to employment, education, housing, healthcare, and other resources.”
“These types of programs embody principles and values of equality, fairness, and justice that are enshrined in our Constitution and federal civil rights laws and reflect a shared commitment to achieving the ideals of a multiracial democracy that fully includes all its people.”
Janai Nelson, president and director-counsel of LDF, said that Trump’s orders amplify inaccurate, dehumanizing, and divisive rhetoric.
“The three orders we are challenging today perpetuate false and longstanding stereotypes that Black people and other underrepresented groups lack skills, talent, and merit—willfully ignoring the discriminatory barriers that prevent a true meritocracy from flourishing,” Nelson said.
But the lawsuit also addresses Trump’s orders targeting transgender Americans.
On Jan. 27, Trump signed an executive order effectively banning transgender people from serving in the military. He argued transgender people are not able to “satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service” and that allowing them to serve threatens the lethality of the armed forces and undermines unit cohesion. Just one day later, the president signed another order meant to broadly restrict access to gender-affirming care for transgender children and teenagers younger than 19.
Trump is expected to sign yet another order on Wednesday banning transgender athletes from competing in girls’ and women’s sports.
“We cannot end the HIV epidemic without working to address health disparities for Black, Latine, LGBTQ+ people, and transgender women,” said John Peller, president and CEO of AIDS Foundation Chicago. “We must be able to prioritize these populations in our work – whether that’s through outreach, engagement initiatives, staff training, or resources – because they are disproportionately impacted by HIV These executive orders would prohibit us from doing that critical and lifesaving work, putting our clients’ and the broader community’s health at risk.”
The lawsuit acknowledges that while Trump is allowed to have his viewpoint, the First Amendment bars him from “unduly imposing” those views on federal contractors and grantees.
The suit also argues that the terms of the orders are “extraordinarily vague” and deprive organizations of free speech and due process.
“Without any discernible standards or criteria of what is and what is not ‘dangerous, demeaning,’ ‘immoral,’ and ‘illegal’ DEIA, as understood by this Administration, the future of Plaintiffs’ fiscal viability and programming are subject to the unfettered discretion of an Administration that has made clear its predisposition against any speech or action that advances equal opportunity for historically marginalized groups, including people of color, women, LGBTQ people, and/or people with disabilities,” the suit reads.
The suit also accuses Trump of working to “quell any ensuing efforts to advance racial justice, including through DEIA initiatives” since his first term and the murder of George Floyd.
“DEIA has been used often as a proxy for race, and the contention that DEIA results in ‘racial preferences’ for ‘unqualified’ people is a common trope to disparage Black candidates,” the suit states. “Thus, the false presumption that DEIA and merit are mutually exclusive perpetuates pernicious racial stereotypes of Black people that have been used to justify their exclusion and underrepresentation. The false assumption that Black people lack merit fails to acknowledge the present-day discrimination that prevents qualified Black candidates from having equal opportunities—a form of racial discrimination that is well-documented.”
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment but previously told The Hill that “the Left’s divisive focus on DEI policies undermines decades of progress toward true equality.” The White House added that the administration “will pursue an agenda that lifts everyone up with the chance to achieve the American Dream.”
Despite backlash to Trump’s orders, companies around the nation have stepped back from DEIA commitments.
Companies including McDonald’s, Target, Walmart, Amazon and Tractor Supply have all ended or rolled back their DEIA promises, many of which were made in the wake of social unrest in 2020.
Wednesday’s suit was not the first to be filed against the Trump administration.
Earlier this month, groups representing university diversity officers and professors, restaurant workers and Baltimore city officials filed a lawsuit against Trump and multiple federal agencies in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The group also argued Trump’s order is too vague and threatens First Amendment and due process rights.
