What You Need to Know About the New Court Rulings on OCR’s “End DEI” Guidance

Three federal courts just blocked parts of the Trump Administration’s Dear Colleague Letter about race and education. Here’s what happened:

In February 2025, the Trump Administration issued a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) through the U.S. Department of Education (ED) that aimed to limit how schools can use race in everything from admissions to student support. The letter built on the 2023 Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ruled against race-based admissions. But the new letter went much further.

Now, three federal courts have said that this DCL should not be enforced. Here is a breakdown:

What Was This “End DEI” Letter About?

The ED’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a letter on February 14, 2025, titled Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in Light of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (read it here).

The letter said the Supreme Court’s ruling on college admissions applies much more broadly. According to OCR, schools may not consider race in areas such as:

• Admissions
• Hiring and promotions
• Scholarships and financial aid
• Graduation ceremonies
• Discipline
• Student housing
• Academic support services

OCR also launched a public complaint portal aimed at ending what it called “DEI” programs (link) and shared a list of Frequently Asked Questions (link).

What Did the Courts Say?

On April 24, 2025, three different federal district courts — in Maryland, New Hampshire, and Washington, D.C. — ruled that the guidance letter should not be enforced. Here is a quick summary of each decision:

1. Maryland: Nationwide Stay

In American Federation of Teachers v. Department of Education, the court said the DCL has the effect of a legislative rule, and therefore was required to go through a mandated notice and comment period. Since the DCL was issued without a notice and comment period, the court found that the DCL violated the Administrative Procedures Act and issued a nationwide stay of the DCL. (“This Court believes the appropriate course of action at this juncture is to temporarily stay the Letter—that is, to postpone its effective date—under 5 U.S.C. § 705 pending a final resolution in this matter.”). Read the ruling.

What it means: The Maryland ruling puts OCR enforcement of the DCL on hold across the entire country. The court did, however, note that the DCL is only unenforceable to the extent that it introduced new categories of conduct prohibited by Title VI. There may be some debate over what counts as “new” versus what was already law.

2. New Hampshire: Preliminary Injunction for Plaintiffs and Related Parties

In National Education Association v. U.S. Department of Education, the court found a number of issues with the DCL, including that it was vague as to prohibited conduct, ran afoul of the First Amendment, exceeded the Department of Education’s statutory authority on regulating curriculum, and violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Nevertheless, the court declined to extend the ruling on the same nationwide level as the Maryland decision discussed above. (“The court is mindful, however, that the scope of a district court’s authority to issue nationwide injunctions is unsettled.”) Rather, the court issued a preliminary injunction just for the plaintiffs and members of the plaintiffs’ organizations. Read the ruling.

What it means: This decision found numerous reasons that the DCL is problematic and should not be enforced, but declined to extend a remedy beyond an injunction for the parties to the case.

3. District of Columbia: Injunction for Certification Requirement

In NAACP v. U.S. Department of Education, the court found that Certification requirement that schools be in compliance with the DCL and related documents was void for vagueness. The administration “shall not require any entity or individual subject to the Certification to make any ‘certification’ or other representation or assurance pursuant to the Certification.” Read the ruling.

What it means: Another court that is concerned by the lack of clarity of what is considered prohibited conduct under the DCL. This ruling enjoins the administration from requiring that schools and institutions certify that they are in compliance with the DCL and related FAQs.

So What Should Schools Do Now?

Schools, districts, and institutions are in a tricky position. The Trump Administration has pushed out new guidance and has made clear an intent to heavily enforce it, but multiple courts have found issues with the DCL and have put limits on its enforcement.

For now, the nationwide stay under the Maryland decision is the most broad in impact, since it applies to all schools and institutions. The Maryland decision, nonetheless, creates a gray area of what is “new” prohibited conduct under Title VI.