President Donald Trump’s anti-DEI agenda hit a road bump Thursday as United States District Court Judge Landya McCafferty issued a preliminary injunction blocking the administration from punishing schools for DEI curriculum.
McCafferty, a Barack Obama appointee who sits in New Hampshire, kicked off her 85-page ruling by arguing that Trump’s anti-DEI push is totalitarian.
“‘[T]he right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is… one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.’ Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949). In this case, the court reviews action by the executive branch that threatens to erode these foundational principles,” McCafferty wrote.
McCafferty’s ruling was one of three issued in separate courts ruling against the Trump administration’s attempt to end race-based policies implemented in the name of “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” (DEI).
The injunction stems from Education Secretary Linda McMahon’s February letter to schools — formally known as a “Dear Colleague” letter — directing the removal of DEI content. Institutions that did not comply were threatened with the loss of federal funds. The National Educators Association and the NEA’s New Hampshire branch brought a lawsuit against the anti-DEI order, along with the Center for Black Educator Development.
“For many schools, loss of federal funding would be crippling. It is predictable—if not obvious— that such schools will eliminate all vestiges of DEI to avoid even the possibility of funding termination,” McCafferty wrote.
McMahon’s letter defines DEI as programs that “teach students that certain racial groups bear unique moral burdens that others do not” and/or “stigmatize students who belong to racial groups.”
But McCafferty found the DEI prohibition outlined in McMahon’s letter and follow-up communications from the federal Department of Education (DOE) demonstrate that the anti-DEI order is vague, unconstitutional, and unenforceable.
“Although the 2025 Letter does not make clear what exactly it prohibits, it makes at least one thing clear: schools should not come close to anything that could be considered ‘DEI,’ lest they be deemed to have guessed wrong in violation of the 2025 Letter’s vague and expansive prohibitions,” McCafferty wrote.
Under the vague DEI definition in McMahon’s letter and subsequent DOE’s communications, an elementary school teacher promoting “The Golden Rule,” a high school history teacher giving a lesson on the rise of the KKK in the aftermath of the Civil War, or a literature teacher assigning work based on the novels “To Kill A Mockingbird” or “Heart of Darkness” could all potentially be punished, McCafferty wrote.
“DEI as a concept is broad: one can imagine a wide range of viewpoints on what the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion mean when describing a program or practice. It is no surprise that several courts— including this one—have struck down similar laws as void for vagueness,” McMahon wrote.
The Trump administration showed no sign of backing down.
“Any judge objecting to this effort is making a mockery of the Constitution they swore an oath to uphold,” White House spokesman Harrison Fields said in a statement.
Attorneys for the Trump administration argued McMahon wasn’t announcing a DEI ban, but instead advising schools against engaging in racial discrimination. McCafferty was not convinced, especially since the DOE created an “End DEI” portal on its website following the letter’s publication.
McCafferty stops short of issuing a national injunction, as the plaintiffs sought. Nor does she limit the injunction to New Hampshire as the government requested. Instead, McCafferty’s injunction applies to any school or entity that employs members of the NEA or the Center for Black Educator Development.
This isn’t McCafferty’s first high-profile ruling. Earlier this year, she sided with the City of Nashua in a lawsuit over its policy of banning flags from its “citizens’ flagpole” that city officials deemed inappropriate, including the Pine Tree flag that is part of New Hampshire’s Revolutionary history.
