Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Nonprofit tradeswomen organization obtains TRO, (Mar 28, 2025)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

The government “shall not require any grantee or contractor to make any ‘certification’ or other representation pursuant to” a certification provision included in its January 21, 2025, executive order.

Chicago Women in Trades (CWIT), a nonprofit organization that operates across the United States and is dedicated to "to promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion within the skilled trades industry" through "preparing women across the country to enter and remain in high-wage skilled trades, including carpentry, electrical work, welding, plumbing, and others,” obtained a temporary restraining order from a federal district court in Illinois yesterday in an effort to protect the federal funding it receives in the form of grants from DOL, which accounts for 40 percent of its annual budget.

The organization filed suit alleging that provisions in executive orders issued in January violated its members’ First and Fifth Amendment rights and also violated the Constitution’s Spending Clause and the separation of powers. It sought a TRO.

Standing and likelihood of success. The court concluded that CWIT had standing to pursue challenges under two of the provisions and that the challenges were ripe for review. It concluded that the termination provision, Section 2(b)(i), of the January 20, 2025, executive order is likely a “coercive threat” and that it also suffers from vagueness issues, and that CWIT had shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims against that provision on First Amendment grounds. Regarding the second provision under which the organization had standing—the certification provision in the January 21, 2025, order, section 3(b)(iv)—the court explained that its reference to “ ‘programs promoting DEI,’ moreover, is fairly read as an express reference to First Amendment-protected speech and advocacy, even if cabined to promoting whatever the government may now contend is ‘illegal DEI.’” It concluded that CWIT also demonstrated a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of that challenge.

One broad, one limited. Concluding that the balance of harms and public interest weighed in favor of granting the TRO, the court issued the TRO. It concluded that the reach of the certification provision supported a broad injunction, but a limited one would suffice for the termination provision. Thus, it ordered that the defendants should not “require any grantee or contractor to make any ‘certification’ or other representation pursuant to” the certification provision, but it limited its relief under the termination provision to CWIT.

The case is No. 25 C 2005.

News: LitigationNewsTrends GovernmentContracts Discrimination AgencyNews