Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—New lawsuit filed by non-profit serving women in trades, challenging anti-DEI executive orders as unconstitutional, (Feb 27, 2025)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

“Diversity is not illegal. Equity is not illegal. Inclusion is not illegal. Diversity, equity, and inclusion are aspirational ideals that have for centuries been fundamental to our progress as a nation. Efforts to promote them do not violate federal civil rights laws.”

In a new lawsuit filed this week in a federal district court in Illinois, the non-profit organization, Chicago Women in Trades (“CWIT”), alleges that the two anti-DEI executive orders (EOs) issued by President Trump in January violate multiple provisions of the U.S. Constitution, violate separation of powers, and constitute an ultra vires act.

On January 20, 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14151, titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing” (the “J20 EO”) and on January 21, 2025, he signed Executive Order 14173, titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (the “J21 EO”).

Frozen funding. CWIT is an organization whose goal is preparing women across the country to enter and remain in high-wage skilled trades, such as carpentry, electrical work, welding, and plumbing. It is a recipient of multiple federal grant awards, but because the anti-diversity orders, they allege, their grant funding has been frozen.

“Diversity is not illegal,” they state at the outset of their complaint. “Equity is not illegal. Inclusion is not illegal. Diversity, equity, and inclusion are aspirational ideals that have for centuries been fundamental to our progress as a nation. Efforts to promote them do not violate federal civil rights laws.” They add, “These efforts are achieving goals that many Americans believe are worth working for and that our Constitution and civil rights laws embody.”

Intentional. However, the DEI-related executive orders issued by the President at the beginning of his new term, they allege, “brazenly seek to eliminate any efforts to promote diversity, equity, or inclusion, regardless of what they are, how they are undertaken, who they impact, or the sources of funding used to support them.”

“The anti-diversity EOs declare all diversity, equity, and inclusion programs illegal,” they allege, “and identify the lengths to which the federal government will go to end them.” But the anti-diversity Eos, they allege, offer no explanations or guidelines, nor any information about how such programs violate any laws. Moreover, they allege, “some provisions of the anti-diversity EOs—such as the J20 EO’s reach to control programs “misleadingly labeled” and “under whatever name”—have no bounds at all.”

“The inscrutability and indeterminacy of the anti-diversity EOs is intentional,” they add. “Indeed,” they note, “the clear purpose of the anti-diversity EOs is to prevent organizations like CWIT from doing any work at all.”

Constitutional violations. “The anti-diversity EOs trample CWIT’s right to free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” they allege. “The anti-diversity EOs impose restrictions on CWIT that are overbroad, impossibly vague, discriminate against CWIT (and other similarly situated entities) based on the administration’s preferred anti-diversity viewpoint, and condition CWIT’s receipt of federal funding upon the stifling of CWIT’s protected speech, trampling CWIT’s due process rights.”

“Moreover,” they explain, “it is the Constitution’s separation of powers that protects these free speech and due process rights.”

More specifically, they identify the “Termination Provisions,” “Certification Provision,” and the “Enforcement Threat Provision” of the EOs as violating the First and Fifth Amendments and Article I, § 8 (Spending Clause and Separation of Powers) of the U.S. Constitution.

Relief sought. They ask the court to “declare unconstitutional and enjoin enforcement of the J20 Termination Provision (§ 2(b)(i) of the J20 EO), the J21 Termination Provision (§ 3(c)(iii) of the J21 EO), the Certification Provision (§ 3(b)(iv) of the J21 EO), and the Enforcement Threat Provision (§ 4(b)(iii)) of the J21 EO).”

The case is No. 1:25-cv-02005.

News: LitigationNewsTrends IndividualRights WhiteHouseNews EconomicNews