Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, REMEDIES, DAMAGES—N.D. Ill.: In challenge to Trump’s EO on DEI, broad preliminary relief was consistent with Supreme Court’s CASA decision, (Nov 3, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

By enjoining enforcement of the certification provision barring operation of DEI programs “against any grantee or contractor,” the preliminary injunction protected Chicago Women in Trades from losing collaborative prospects.

A federal court in Illinois rejected the Trump administration’s bid for a partial stay of a previously issued preliminary injunction requested by Chicago Women in Trades (CWIT)—a nonprofit organization dedicated to “promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion within the skilled trades industry”—against a provision in an executive order issued by President Trump that required recipients of federal funds to certify that they do not operate DEI programs. Rejecting the government’s argument that the preliminary injunction should be narrowed in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. Casa since it applied to “any grantee or contractor” and not, at most, CWIT and its partners, the court found the broad injunction was necessary to afford CWIT complete relief, was supported by background jurisdictional remedial principles, and justified by the specific facts underlying this particular case (Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump, No. 25 C 2005 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 30, 2025)).

Federally funded. CWIT provides programming focused on “preparing women across the country to enter and remain in high-wage skilled trades, including carpentry, electrical work, welding, plumbing, and others.” Although primarily based in Illinois, CWIT provided technical assistance and gender equity training to industry stakeholders in all 50 states. The nonprofit receives about 40 percent of its annual budget from federal funding.

Executive Orders. In the first two days in office, President Donald Trump issued two Executive Orders addressing DEI. EO 1415, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” issued on January 20 (J20 Order), focused on ending DEI programs within the federal government. EO 14173 “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” issued on January 21 (J21 Order), focused on “enforcing civil rights laws” by “ending illegal preferences and discrimination” in the federal government and the private sector.

Lawsuit. CWIT brought this lawsuit to challenge the legality of several provisions in the EOs. As relevant to the present motion, CWIT challenged a certification provision of the J21 order which mandated, amongst other things, that all federal agency heads include terms in every contract or grant award requiring parties to agree to comply with federal anti-discrimination laws and certify that they do not operate DEI programs. CWIT claimed this certification provision violated the First Amendment by regulating speech and conduct outside the contours of the federal grants.

Preliminary injunction. On April 14, the district court issued an order in which it determined that CWIT was likely to prevail on the merits of its First Amendment challenge and that a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the certification provision was warranted “against any grantee or contractor.” The court found this broader scope was appropriate for three main reasons: (1) CWIT raised a facial challenge, and the analysis that the certification provision violated the First Amendment applied to all federal grantees and contractors; (2) it was likely that the certification provision would impact and chill protected speech of other grantees and contractors; and (3) enjoining enforcement against other grantees and contractors likely was necessary to afford CWIT complete relief because otherwise there would be a “strong likelihood” that other entities would be reluctant to collaborate with CWIT.

SCOTUS issues CASA. On June 27, the Supreme Court addressed the propriety of so-called universal injunctions in Trump v. CASA, Inc., holding that, amongst other things, district courts lack the authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to enjoin nonparties when doing so is not necessary to “administer complete relief between the parties.” The Supreme Court explained that the question under the complete-relief principle is "whether an injunction will offer complete relief to the plaintiffs before the court.”

Government challenges scope. In light of CASA, the government sought a partial stay limiting the preliminary injunction pending appeal to, at most, CWIT and its partners. However, the district court rejected the government’s argument that the scope of the preliminary injunction was too broad following CASA.

“Complete relief.” While one of the court's reasons for enjoining enforcement against nonparties was to directly protect nonparties' First Amendment rights, enjoining all enforcement was also necessary to provide CWIT complete relief. In particular, such relief was necessary to protect CWIT's ability to partner and collaborate with others, as it had done consistently in the past and intended to do in the future. The court reasoned that if it were to only enjoin enforcement against CWIT, other recipients of federal funds would still be subjected to the certification DEI provision which, because it did not provide any definition of DEI, would chill recipients from engaging in a wide range of activities. “This chilling effect is likely to encompass much, if not all, of CWIT's programming.” Moreover, recipients who collaborated with CWIT could risk of losing federal funding or making a “false” certification that would subject them to liability under the False Claims Act.

Not unduly burdensome. Based on the same reasoning, the court rejected the government's contention the universal injunction was unduly burdensome since it barred “an Executive Branch agency from carrying out the President's directive with respect to any of its thousands of funding recipients,” and that narrowing the injunction to enjoin enforcement against only CWIT and the few DOL funding recipients with whom it actually partnered would provide complete relief. The government downplayed the harm to CWIT that justified the scope of the injunction since the certification not only disrupted CWIT’s existing collaborations, but also risked dissuading others from beginning discussions with CWIT or even contemplating whether to do so. Thus, the preliminary injunction should cover anyone subject to the DEI certification provision and not only those federal recipients with which CWIT has already partnered.

Particular circumstances. Noting that “complete relief” is a narrower concept than “universal relief,” the court concluded that enjoining all enforcement of the certification provision was also justified by the “necessities of the particular case.” The main focus of CWIT’s work was inherently collaborative as its main focus was “providing technical assistance and gender equity training to industry stakeholders.” Therefore, given the range of potential partners that may be chilled by enforcement of the DEI certification provision, it would be impracticable to require the nonprofit to identify each of the nonparties that it believed it would be likely to collaborate with in the future. And since the chilling effect of the certification provision would “preemptively shut the door on those collaborative efforts,” there would be no way for CWIT to show which nonparties it likely would have collaborated with but for the certification provision. Accordingly, the only feasible option was for the court to enjoin all enforcement of the provision.

The case is No. 25 C 2005.

Judge: Kennelly, M.

Attorneys: Adrienne Dervartanian (National Women's Law Center) for Chicago Women in Trades. Pardis Gheibi, U.S. Department of Justice, for Donald J. Trump.

Companies: Chicago Women in Trades

Cases: RemediesDamages Procedure IndividualRights GovernmentContracts IllinoisNews