US judge blocks Donald Trump's executive order ending federal aid for DEI programmes

The government doesn't have the obligation to subsidize plaintiffs' exercise of speech."

Judiciary Department attorney Pardis Gheibi said

The harm arises from the issuance of it as a public, vague, threatening executive order,

Abelson said in a hearing this week,

What’s happening is an overcorrection and pulling back on DEI statements,

attorney Aleshadye Getachew said in a hearing

But the President simply does not wield that power,

they wrote in the complaint

Ordinary citizens bear the brunt,

attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in the complaint

Radical leftists can either choose to swim against the tide and reject the overwhelming will of the people, or they can get on board and work with President Trump to advance his wildly popular agenda,

Fields said

Our Constitution protects all Americans – whether you are a university professor or a restaurant worker – from unlawful intrusion on speech, ideas, and expression and entitles all Americans to fair process, ... As our complaint states, in the United States, there is no King.”

CEO Skye Perryman said in a statement, adding

The undefined terms leave potential targets with no anchor as to what speech or which actions the order encompasses,

the plaintiffs argue

Brandon Scottmayor

This executive order goes beyond just attacking DEI — it aims to establish the legal framework to attack anyone or any place who dares to celebrate our diversity,

Scott said

Plaintiffs must either risk prosecution for making a false claim or censor promotion of their values. Our Constitution does not tolerate that result,

the lawsuit states

As Plaintiffs put it, 'efforts to foster inclusion have been widespread and uncontroversially legal for decades, ... Plaintiffs' irreparable harms include widespread chilling of unquestionably protected speech."

wrote Abelson

The White House and attorney general have made clear, through their ongoing implementation of various aspects of the J21 order, that viewpoints and speech considered to be in favor of or supportive of DEI or DEIA are viewpoints the government wishes to punish and, apparently, attempt to extinguish,

Abelson wrote in one widely shared passage

Plaintiffs have amply established a likelihood that they will succeed in proving that the Termination Provision invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement over billions of dollars in government funding,

U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson ruled

The possibilities are almost endless, and many are pernicious,

Abelson wrote