Federal Court Enjoins DEI And Gender Executive Orders

The City of Seattle recently succeeded in securing a partial injunction against the Trump Administration's enforcement of two executive orders (EOs) under which the Administration threatened to withhold millions in federal grant funding to the City. Judge Barbara J. Rothstein's decision in the Western District of Washington, if upheld on appeal, has significant implications for federal grant recipients and the conditions that may be imposed on federal funding related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and gender issues.

Background

The two executive orders at issue, EO 14173 (the DEI Order) and EO 14168 (the Gender Order), were issued by the Trump Administration earlier this year. The City of Seattle challenged the legality of the DEI and Gender Orders, arguing that they violate constitutional principles and exceed statutory authority by conditioning federal funding on compliance with the Administration's policy directives. The City asserted that these orders threaten the loss of approximately $370 million in federal funds supporting critical infrastructure, public safety, and social programs, due to Seattle's policies promoting DEI and gender equality.

The DEI Order requires federal agencies to include terms in all contracts and grants mandating that recipients certify compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws and affirm that they do not operate any programs promoting DEI initiatives that violate such laws. The Gender Order directs agencies to ensure that federal funds are not used to "promote gender ideology," as defined by the Administration, and to assess grant conditions accordingly. Federal agencies implemented these requirements in their grant agreements and application processes, warning recipients of potential audits, funding clawbacks, and/or termination for noncompliance.

Court's Analysis

Judge Rothstein granted the preliminary injunction on October 31, 2025, enjoining enforcement of the two EOs. According to the court, the DEI Order "does not simply require that grant recipients comply with federal antidiscrimination laws," but rather "is meant to advance the Trump Administration's own interpretation of 'discrimination.'" The court found that Seattle is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), specifically that the Administration's actions:

• Violate the Separation of Powers and Exceed Statutory Authority: The court held that the executive branch may not unilaterally impose new funding conditions not authorized by Congress. The DEI and Gender Orders were found to advance the Administration's own interpretations of anti-discrimination law and "gender ideology," rather than simply requiring compliance with existing federal law. The court emphasized that only Congress has the power to set conditions on federal appropriations, and that the executive's attempt to do so was unconstitutional and in excess of statutory authority.
• Are Arbitrary and Capricious: The court determined that the Administration failed to provide a reasoned explanation for the new funding conditions, and that the orders were designed to advance a particular policy agenda rather than ensure lawful use of federal funds. The court noted that the Administration's interpretation of anti-discrimination laws was inconsistent with established legal precedent and, in some cases, directly conflicted with statutory requirements to promote diversity and inclusion.
• Cause Irreparable Harm: The court credited Seattle's evidence that the threatened loss of federal funding would cause immediate and irreparable harm to essential city services, public safety, infrastructure projects, and vulnerable populations. The court also recognized that the uncertainty and instability created by the EOs themselves constituted an ongoing injury.

Relief Granted

The court enjoined the federal government from enforcing the challenged provisions of the DEI and Gender Orders against Seattle, ordered that any actions taken to implement or enforce those provisions be treated as null and void, and required the government to take immediate steps to effectuate the order. The court denied the government's requests for a stay pending appeal and for Seattle to post a bond.

Key Takeaways

• The decision underscores there are limits to congressional authority over federal appropriations and executive power in setting grant conditions.
• The Court held that federal agencies may not impose new or expanded conditions on grant funding that are not expressly authorized by Congress.
• Grant recipients facing the threat of funding loss due to such executive actions may be entitled to injunctive relief.

This ruling provides important guidance for public entities and other federal grant recipients navigating the intersection of federal funding, executive policy directives, and constitutional limitations. Recipients should closely monitor further developments, including any appeals of this decision, and review their compliance obligations in light of this decision.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.