Educator Julian Vasquez Heilig takes a look at the recent court decision that up-ended the Trumpian attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
By now, most people have heard the news. U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, herself a Trump appointee, ruled that the Department of Education acted unlawfully when it issued two guidance documents directing colleges to dismantle their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs or risk losing federal funding.
“The government cannot proclaim that it ‘will no longer tolerate’ speech it dislikes because of its ‘motivating ideology’—that is a ‘blatant’ and ‘egregious’ violation of the First Amendment.” Stephanie Gallagher
The ruling is a critical rebuke of the administration’s attempt to govern higher education through fiat rather than legislation. It is also a striking reminder of how fragile equity work has become under authoritarian politics. The decision sends an important message: agencies cannot rewrite civil rights law through guidance documents. But it also raises a sobering question: what happens now, given the chilling effect that swept across campuses in the weeks after the guidance was issued? See the post U.S. Department of Education’s 14-Day Ultimatum on Equal Opportunity: Will Universities Surrender or Resist?
The speed of institutional compliance should give us pause. Colleges across the country rushed to cancel scholarships, scrub job postings, and pull down DEI statements before the ink on the guidance was even dry. Administrators feared the loss of federal student aid dollars and research funding if they resisted. For students and faculty, the effect was immediate. Mentorship programs designed to support first-generation students were frozen. Faculty search committees were told to strip language about inclusive hiring. Campus cultural centers saw their budgets suspended. Even though the guidance lacked the force of law, it carried the weight of political intimidation. Institutions that were already risk-averse capitulated quickly, signaling just how vulnerable DEI work is to partisan attack.
Judge Gallagher’s ruling is important not only for what it says about this particular case but also for what it reveals about the limits of executive overreach. The Department of Education tried to bypass Congress and decades of settled civil rights law by threatening colleges with financial ruin. The court rejected this maneuver, clarifying that guidance documents cannot unilaterally redefine Title VI or Title IX. For equity advocates, this is a necessary victory. It draws a line against authoritarian attempts to use bureaucratic instruments to erase the progress of decades. Yet, while the ruling halts enforcement, it does not immediately restore the programs that colleges gutted under pressure. The damage has already been done to students who lost scholarships, faculty who had offers rescinded, and campus communities that saw trust eroded.