On Friday, an appellate court overturned a lower court’s injunction that had blocked the president’s executive order aimed at terminating DEI programs funded by federal tax dollars.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, located in Richmond, Virginia, removed the nationwide injunction that had been established by U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson, a Biden appointee, in Baltimore, as reported by NBC News.
The three-judge panel indicated that the president’s directives, which included directing the Department of Justice to investigate companies employing DEI policies, were likely constitutional. However, two of the judges expressed disagreement with the content of the president’s orders, suggesting that their implementation might contravene the Constitution.
“Despite the criticism currently directed at DEI, individuals of good faith who strive to foster diversity, equity, and inclusion should be commended, not condemned,” stated Circuit Judge Albert Diaz in his opinion, although this sentiment seemed unrelated to the legal aspects, as noted by District Judge Allison Rushing, a Trump appointee, in her own opinion.
“A judge’s belief that DEI programs ‘deserve praise, not opprobrium’ should have no bearing on the resolution of this case,” she asserted. In February, Attorney General Pam Bondi terminated federal lawsuits initiated by the Biden administration against local police and fire departments concerning their merit-based hiring practices.
During the Biden administration, the DOJ’s Office of Civil Rights had taken legal action against local first responders for favoring merit in hiring decisions over race-based considerations, according to Just the News. “In the absence of evidence for intentional discrimination—only statistical disparities—the previous administration labeled the aptitude tests involved in these cases as discriminatory to further a DEI agenda,” the DOJ stated in a press release.
“It sought to compel cities to adopt DEI-oriented hiring practices in response.”President Donald Trump enacted executive orders to terminate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies within the federal government. This week, Bondi’s decision represents the latest move in the ongoing initiative to dismantle DEI programs under the current administration.
According to Bondi’s office, DEI policies are perceived as a risk to public safety, and the dismissal of certain cases is viewed as an initial step towards eliminating unlawful DEI preferences both in government and the private sector.
“American communities deserve to have firefighters and police officers selected based on their skills and commitment to public safety, rather than to fulfill DEI quotas,” Bondi stated.
The proposed consent decrees generally recognized that the departments employed neutral selection criteria, including credit checks, written examinations, and physical fitness tests, to assess candidates for available positions. However, it was noted that White men often scored higher or performed better on these evaluations, as reported by Fox News. For example, a lawsuit filed in October against the City of Durham, North Carolina, claimed “unintentional” discrimination against Black applicants, highlighting that they failed to achieve the necessary 70% passing score on the written exam at a lower rate than their White counterparts, which led to a reduced number of Black hires.
To address this issue, the complaint suggested the elimination of the neutral written test and the provision of “back pay and/or preferential hiring” for Black candidates who were not chosen due to their exam results. The estimated financial impact of these proposals was around $980,000 in relief.
In a different case against the Maryland State Police filed in October 2024, it was recommended that the agency abandon its existing selection processes, which included a written test requiring a minimum score of 70% and a physical assessment that involved push-ups, sit-ups, a flexibility reach, a trigger pull, and a 1.5-mile run, as reported by Fox.The Civil Rights Division determined that Maryland was unlawfully discriminating against Black applicants and women, as indicated in a filing for the case. This conclusion was based on the observation that Black applicants had a lower pass rate on the test compared to White applicants, and that women were less likely to pass the physical test than their male counterparts.
