Attorney General Bonta Co-Leads Multistate Amicus Brief Challenging the Trump Administration’s “Anti-DEI” Executive Orders

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 18 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump in support of a challenge to the Trump Administration’s executive orders targeting programs that incorporate equity, inclusion, diversity, and accessibility (Anti-DEI EOs). In their brief, the attorneys general urge the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to uphold the district court’s decision granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.  

“In California we recognize the importance of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, especially when it comes to ensuring that all Californians have an equal opportunity to thrive and feel empowered to contribute to society,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration’s attempt to remove programs and policies that combat discrimination and promote economic and social benefits is frankly un-American. Programs and practices that incorporate diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility are critical to states, as they not only drive innovation and economic growth, but also provide essential benefits to ensure a safe and welcoming environment for all.”

In January 2025, President Trump issued two Executive Orders targeting “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) and “equity-related grants or contracts.” While the Anti-DEIA EOs did not define these or other key terms, they directed: (1) executive agencies to terminate equity-related grants or contracts; (2) agencies to require contractors and grantees to certify that they do not run DEIA programs that, in the Administration’s view, violate federal antidiscrimination laws; and (3) the U.S. Attorney General to take steps to discourage private-sector use of DEIA, including deterring such initiatives and promoting compliance investigations. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland later issued a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claims that the challenged provisions were unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment and infringed on the plaintiffs’ freedom of expression in violation of the First Amendment.

In the amicus brief, the coalition urges the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to affirm the district court’s decision granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, arguing that:

• DEIA principles and practices are grounded in longstanding antidiscrimination laws and provide important benefits to states, their residents, and their businesses.
• The vague and unclear directives set forth in the challenged provisions harm states, which have begun to receive notices from federal agencies that threaten billions of dollars in federal funding for essential services like basic K-12 education, highway infrastructure, public health, workforce development, and environmental protections.
• The challenged provisions create a chilling effect on private entities, which must decide whether, in the face of these vague terms and threats, to continue to provide essential services upon which states’ residents rely.
• Abandonment of these programs will cause immeasurable harm to states and their residents, who rely on practices and programs that advance and support diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility to combat discrimination and to secure extensive economic, social, and educational benefits.

Attorney General Bonta co-led the filing of today’s brief along with the attorneys general of Illinois and Massachusetts. They are joined by the following states: Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

A copy of the brief can be found here.