Federal Court Vacates U.S. Department of Education’s “End DEI” Initiatives: Key Legal Findings and Implications
Co-Authors: Mary Rohmiller, Ariel Warner, Alice Yao, Catherine Guttman-McCabe
Introduction
On Friday, August 14, a federal judge in Maryland vacated two documents issued by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) that imposed new requirements on states and school districts related to diversity, equity, and inclusion that were directly contrary to ED’s previous policy. The court’s carefully written and thoughtful analysis explains that ED acted outside of its authority, restricted classroom speech in violation of the First Amendment, and left schools and teachers unsure of exactly what DEI practices ED deemed impermissible.
In a comprehensive 76-page opinion, the district court vacated the following documents issued by ED:
- The February 14, 2025, Dear Colleague Letter addressing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices, which set forth ED’s current interpretation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023); and
- The April 2025 Certification Requirement, which mandated that all states and school districts certify, within a short timeframe, that they were not engaging in “illegal DEI” activities.
Citing multiple violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and constitutional protections, the court vacated both documents in their entirety. Though these documents were already subject to a preliminary injunction, this decision has significant implications for the federal government’s attempts to enforce its broad interpretation of SFFA against school districts and educational institutions, as it formally vacates both documents nationwide. In addition, it is a reminder to the federal government that it must follow the procedures laid out by the APA before it imposes new requirements on recipients.
Key Legal Findings
The court determined that both the Dear Colleague Letter and the Certification Requirement constituted legislative rules with binding effect, making them subject to the full requirements of the APA.
Having determined that the APA applied, the court found several procedural deficiencies. Specifically, the court found that ED failed to follow the APA’s notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures and that the Certification Requirement did not comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Additionally, the court found that the documents were arbitrary and capricious, noting that ED altered longstanding policy without explanation, failed to provide a factual basis, and ignored reliance interests on longstanding ED policies. The court also concluded that, by categorizing certain classroom discussions as “discriminatory,” ED overstepped its authority and infringed upon curriculum control, contrary to the Department of Education Organization Act.
Additionally, the court noted several constitutional infirmities. The court concluded that speech proscribed by the Dear Colleague Letter, such as labeling discussions of systemic racism as inherently “discriminatory,” constituted impermissible viewpoint discrimination. The court also found the Dear Colleague Letter and the Certification Requirement to be unconstitutionally vague because of the use of undefined terms such as “illegal DEI” failed to provide adequate notice to educators, raising concerns of arbitrary enforcement.
Despite recent Supreme Court limitations on nationwide injunctions, see Trump v. CASA, Inc., 145 S.Ct. 2540 (2025), the court held that the APA requires courts to “set aside” unlawful agency actions, noting that every other court to consider the issue post-CASA reached the same conclusion. As a result, the vacatur applies universally, not solely to the named plaintiffs.
Implications
This decision reinforces that federal agencies, including ED, cannot bypass formal rulemaking procedures—including notice and opportunity for public comment—when implementing sweeping policy shifts. The ruling has implications beyond ED’s interpretation of Title VI and SFFA; its principles apply to the federal government’s actions more broadly, and it clearly explains the legal requirements federal agencies must follow before changing their interpretations of the law and imposing new requirements on recipients of federal funding.
The Supreme Court’s decision in SFFA regarding race-based college admissions remains controlling, but the court soundly rejected ED’s attempt to unilaterally extend SFFA to prohibit race-neutral diversity measures and to restrict classroom content or programming that is consistent with established Title VI requirements.
The court’s ruling likely has ramifications for the Department of Justice’s July 29, 2025 “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination.” That document raises similar concerns, characterizing longstanding, permissible efforts to address discrimination as unlawful.
School districts and institutions that made changes in response to the now-vacated Dear Colleague Letter and Certification Requirement should consult with counsel to review those changes in light of this ruling. Additionally, school districts and institutions should proceed cautiously and consult with legal counsel before making any changes in response to the DOJ July 29 guidance or any similar pronouncements to ensure compliance with the established requirements of Title VI. Finally, schools should continue to monitor any DEI programs and initiatives to ensure compliance with applicable state and federal law.
Potomac Law’s Education Practice is well suited to help our clients navigate this evolving enforcement environment. Our team includes former ED and DOJ attorneys with deep experience in the substantive requirements of education civil rights laws as well as the procedural requirements of the APA.
