On Friday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the much-covered nationwide injunction imposed by U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore regarding ending federal support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The three-judge panel ruled that Judge Abelson had gone “too far” in seeking to enjoin the federal government across the country.
The Fourth Circuit recognized that the executive orders “could raise concerns” about First Amendment rights that might have to be addressed down the road. However, it found Abelson’s “sweeping block went too far.” It also pointed out that the orders were not nearly as unlimited and sweeping as suggested by the district court or the media.
Trump’s orders directed federal agencies to terminate all “equity-related” grants or contracts, and further required federal contractors to certify that they implement DEI programs which the Administration believes are discriminatory and violated federal civil rights laws. Those orders are also being challenged in other cases and include “Ending Radical and Wasteful DEI Programs and Preferencing;” “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government;” and “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.”
The district court found the orders in the Maryland case to be unconstitutionally “vague” and chilled free speech. That was a victory for the litigants, including the City of Baltimore, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors and the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United.
In their order, the panel explained that the orders were misrepresented in their scope. Judge Pamela Harris, a Biden appointee, wrote that
“The challenged Executive Orders, on their face, are of distinctly limited scope. The Executive Orders do not purport to establish the illegality of all efforts to advance diversity, equity or inclusion, and they should not be so understood.”
Judge Harris also noted that the orders “do not authorize the termination of grants based on a grantee’s speech or activities outside the scope of the funded activities.” Likewise, she noted that the certifications only require pledges not to violate existing federal anti-discrimination laws.
Nevertheless, Judge Harris noted that the officials could enforce these orders in unconstitutional ways: “Agency enforcement actions that go beyond the Orders’ narrow scope may well raise serious First Amendment and Due Process concerns,” the judge added.
Chief Judge Albert Diaz, an Obama appointee, agreed with Harris but wanted to emphasize that the enforcement of these orders should not stray from their narrow framing: “I too reserve judgment on how the administration enforces these executive orders.”
Judge Diaz, however, went beyond that scope and engaged in a degree of editorialization on the value of DEI programs.
“Despite the vitriol now being heaped on DEI, people of good faith who work to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion deserve praise, not opprobrium. When this country embraces true diversity, it acknowledges and respects the social identity of its people. When it fosters true equity, it opens opportunities and ensures a level playing field for all. And when its policies are truly inclusive, it creates an environment and culture where everyone is respected and valued. What could be more American than that?… A country does itself no favors by scrubbing the shameful moments of its past.”
The only Trump appointee pushed back on the rhetoric of her colleagues in their defense of DEI policies. Judge Allison Rushing correctly, in my view, objected to the political dimension of such dicta.
“Any individual judge’s view on whether certain Executive action is good policy is not only irrelevant to fulfilling our duty to adjudicate cases and controversies according to the law, it is an impermissible consideration. A judge’s opinion that DEI programs ‘deserve praise, not opprobrium’ should play absolutely no part in deciding this case.”
I also found the tenor of the opinion of Chief Judge Diaz to be concerning. The review of an injunction is not an invitation or license to express one’s personal view of the moral or social value of government programs. I share the concern of all three judges with how these orders will be enforced to protect free speech rights. However, we have a court system to address any such abuses if they were to arise. If there are “as applied” violations, they can be raised in the context of a specific case with the courts. In the meantime, the Supreme Court has signaled that it is losing patience with nationwide injunctions from district court judges.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson: {S M A C K}
And another legal lightweight rolls over the floor. Did Joe and Barry have a talent for picking such embarrassments or is this just typical ivy league product?
Joe and Barry picked based on skin color and adherence to an extreme leftist ideology. They did not pick based on merit.
Oldman
In Barry’s case a slight correction, that would be foreskin color…and that would be Red!
You can thank “Crazy Abe” Lincoln for throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
“Crazy Abe” threw the Constitution out with reprehensible slavery.
“Crazy Abe” was too weak to make the tough decisions to “Save the Constitution” instead of “Save the Union” and enforce existing, legitimate, licit, and rational immigration law.
Compassionate repatriation was the just and appropriate resolution; the logistics were no more prohibitive than sending entire armies to Europe, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
The antagonisms of “Crazy Abe’s” failures persist to this day; just ask “Mad Max.”
“Did Joe and Barry have a talent for picking such embarrassments or is this just typical ivy league product?”
Yes.
Where are Matt Kacsmaryk and Diane Cannon from?
No law by the legislative branch shall exercise executive power.
No decision by the judicial branch shall exercise executive power.
That is the enumerated mandate of the Constitution.
Typo. The blog post says Trump’s EO “required federal contractors to certify that they implement DEI programs which the Administration believes are discriminatory and violated federal civil rights laws.” It actually requires contractors to certify they are NOT implementing these DEI programs.
Now another Obama judge with imperial ambitions.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/03/radical-activist-judge-blocks-trumps-plan-invoke-alien
After awhile people will grow tired of this.
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Hopefully this will support Trump’s argument currently before Scotus that these district judges have gotten out of control and need to be reined in.
Oldman,
I think you are right. The mere number of these imperial pipsqueaks may move the Court to act unambiguously.
I think it would help, too, if there were at least a have dozen articles of impeachment filed against these judges, enough to embarrass the judiciary into acting.
Impeachment could backfire, imho. A definitive ruling by SCOTUS would be best.
Also, legislation is called for to say what US district judges can and can’t do.
Impeachment could backfire. Turley gave good reasons not to do it and the Senate would never convict.
But it sends a strong signal to the Court that a political problem in the lower courts might be addressed politically by Congress or the President and I think the Court would rather tidy its own house than have large scale disposal units do it for them.
I would like to see the DC courts abolished.
All federal courts except the Supreme exist at the pleasure of Congress and Congress should signal its displeasure before getting the wrecking ball out of the shed and reducing them to midgets. Once the process is started many old grievances may be remembered and addressed.
Could it really happen? A few weeks ago I would not have guessed that USAID and the Dept of Education could be demolished.
Judges want to wittingly impose unconstitutional laws that illicitly usurp and exercise executive power.
Judges want to wittingly impose legislation that must have been struck down upon passage; laws that must have never been written.
They cannot; they cannot circuitously impose their personal beliefs over the Constitution.
If the judges rule against the law now, they must have overturned it then—they prove their own culpability and guilt.
It is the Constitution that holds dominion and is “the supreme law of the Land.”
“The supreme Law of the Land” vests the executive power totally and exclusively in “a President”; it vests no executive power in the legislative or judicial branch.
No legislation or adjudication that exercises any aspect, facet, degree, or amount of executive power is constitutional.
The Constitution distributes the unassailable, absolute power of the King in distinct and particular areas of governance.
“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,…” and those judges must be impeached and convicted “during [bad] Behaviour.”
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 6
This Constitution…shall be the supreme Law of the Land;….
This is a test #222
I agree…
This is just ridiculous, just too much. These judges and justices must be impeached and convicted. The judicial branch must be placed squarely back on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Bad idea. Impeaching judges for anything other than malfeasance or corruption sets a precedent that can be used against any judge for any opinion. Yes, there are Obama and Biden judges that let political bias color their decisions. The answer is to elect presidents who will nominate judges who will uphold the Constitution. Even that is no garuantee that you will agree with all their decisions but that is the best we can do to preserve judicial independence.
Then America is at the end, isn’t it?
Let the duly elected president go home and mail him a check.
America is under the unfettered and dictatorial dominion of the judicial branch—His Eminence, King John Roberts, is also the President and Commander-In-Chief.
I am certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that this comports fully with the intent—the letter and spirit—of the American Founders and Framers.
Who cares, tar and feather their worthless asses and run them out on a rail. Fuggem
The Biden autopen scandal may explode. Now Trump is talking about it.
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/03/15/trump-has-something-to-say-about-the-biden-autopen-scandal-n4937941
As for the ‘aide’ who was thought to be truly running the government, it would be funny if his prison sentence were signed by autopen.
Live by, die by.
The “autopen” is the signature of Obama during his third term under the same administration including the same personnel.
Susan Rice et al. anyone?
While the scope of the EOs is a reasonable concern for the court, I would like to see appellate courts at some point address where a district court judge finds the jurisdiction to issue orders to apply in every jurisdiction in the country. I have never understood how a single judge can assert such authority and wish the 4th had addressed that.
Just as an fyi, not saying it’s right:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_injunction
#74. The article is confusing.
Stick with actual law. SCOTUS won’t be confused by calling affirmative action as DEI.
It does appear judges are encroaching.
Oldman..,
Good article. It leaves me with the impression that nationwide injunctions are on very shaky legal ground but have been tolerated because, at times, they have prevented lawless governmental actions.
Now that they are being widely abused to diminish the powers of the Article II executive for clearly political rather than legal reasons the slender and weak legal support for nationwide injunctions will be attacked and, likely, cut away.
Put simply no government can function well if screwball judges can usurp power on little more than whimsy.
They carried it too far and now they will be trimmed back.
The Court can, and should, do it, but if they are unwilling it may be done for them by the President and he may be inclined to take much more away from the courts than they would lose if the courts cut back the weeds themselves.
The President has his own constitutional obligations, interpretations and authorities that can’t be surrendered to pipsqueak activist judges.
That’s all fairly complicated, but would it be fair to say it metastasized upon Obama’s DACA policy circa 2010?
You demonstrate your erroneous belief that the legislative and judicial branches are vested with executive power.
Those branches have no legal basis to exercise any aspect, facet, degree, or amount of executive power.
The fact of the matter is we were told the Democrat Party believed in Truth over Fact by its leader just a few short years ago. Now it’s become the norm for the arbiters of justice to become abettors of the lefts allusions of righteousness of purpose.
Below there was reference to AG Bondi and their concern:
While doing business some years back in the Mountain West I solicited a meeting with an elder of a local Native America reservation about a project adjacent to the reservation. At the time of scheduled meeting there was no sight of him, the individual who assisted in getting the meeting was from the same tribe and saw my dismay, wanting to sway my concern he said: we’re on Indian time, my puzzled look made him laugh then he explained Indian time is whenever I get there. Ever since then I’ve lived that motto, I’m never early or late but always on time.
THIS DECISION RELATES STATES WITHIN THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.
Justice Diaz’s opinion is so wrong it sounds like an impressionable teenager wrote it: “And when its policies are truly inclusive, it creates an environment and culture where everyone is respected and valued.” In America, “respect” and “value” must be earned, they are not and cannot be inherent. In fact, it seems to me that no society could survive if it lived by the Diaz rule that “everyone” must be respected and valued. Each day’s news carries stories of people in this country, legally and illegally, who deserve no respect and who have no value to our society. America has not only the right but the obligation to weed out destructive people as well as destructive polices and programs, even if doing so hurts the feelings and perhaps even the prospects of those who believe they are entitled to anything this country has to offer. Today, these many decades after all Americans were assured of equal rights under the law, DEI, affirmative action and any other government program that considers race as one of its criteria must be eliminated.
Excellenbnt and correct
The left is confused over what is a right and what is not. Rights are something that does NOT burden others and that you are automatically entitled to.
Respect is not a right – it must be earned.
Food, shelter, medical care are not rights – they too must be earned. When we pretend they are a right – we burden others to provide them.
“ Food, shelter, medical care are not rights”
They are….natural rights. I thought natural rights are above all else. You need food to live, shelter and medical care as well. Just as natural as the right to self defense.
If they’re rights then why do people have to work to earn money to pay for them? You don’t have to earn money to pay for the natural right of self defense, the right to worship according to conscience, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right of free speech, the right to due process, or any other constitutional or natural right.
If we accept that food, medical care, and shelter are similar, then somebody is obligated to provide them for free. Who is obligated, in your view?
Those are products available for purchase in the free markets of the private sector.
Of course, free Americans enjoy the freedom and right to engender and provide their own food, shelter, medical care, and whatever else they require or desire.
I saw this story about a recent criminal deportee: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/milwaukee/2025/03/14/south-milwaukee-woman-deported-to-laos-is-stranded-with-few-options/82369691007/
She was a Hmong childhood arrival (at 8 months of age) who supplemented her income at a nail salon with marijuana distribution, for which she already served her sentence. She was also the primary caregiver for three generations of her family. Is it truly better for the U.S. to “weed out” such a person? The rest of that family is going to struggle and may become a burden to society. It does seem like a case for prosecutorial discretion, like deferred action for childhood arrival.
On the other hand, a deportee in my county also lived here for more than three decades and was recently deported for having three DUIs. For this I have less sympathy–alcoholics often relapse, he could kill someone next time, and he illegally immigrated as an adult. Again, it seems like there needs to be prosecutorial discretion.
This is a test because my comments disappear after posting. Why is this happening.
https://babylonbee.com/news/federal-judge-appoints-himself-president?utm_source=The%20Babylon%20Bee%20Newsletter&utm_medium=email
Proclamation 80—Calling Forth the Militia and Convening an Extra Session of Congress
“On April 15, 1861,…President Abraham Lincoln issued a proclamation calling forth the state militias, to the sum of 75,000 troops, in order to suppress the rebellion. He appealed ‘to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union.’”
Proclamation 92—Warning to Rebel Sympathizers
“[On] July 17, 1862,…I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim to and warn all persons within the contemplation of said sixth section to cease participating in, aiding, countenancing, or abetting the existing rebellion or any rebellion against the Government of the United States and to return to their proper allegiance to the United States on pain of the forfeitures and seizures as within and by said sixth section provided.”
_______________________________________________________________________________
Now President Donald J. Trump MUST pull a full “Lincoln” and close the border, impose martial law, prosecute a war against the communist rebellion without a formal declaration, shred the Communist Manifesto and irrevocably extirpate all principles of communism in America, implement the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights including absolute freedom, absolute free enterprise, absolute free markets, absolute private property, and a substantial diminution of taxation and regulation, eliminate the Departments of Labor, Education, Agriculture, Energy, HUD, and EPA, issue the “Deportation Proclamation” deporting all illegal aliens, past and present, including those who illegally pursued citizenship as criminal border crossers and “asylum” seekers who all made false and fraudulent claims of phantom, nonexistent persecution as foreign citizens with no U.S. rights, establish coherent voter qualifications by State legislatures per the Constitution, declare English the sole official language of the United States, suspend habeas corpus, smash opposition printing presses, networks, podcasts, social media platforms, etc., and throw anyone and everyone who opposes him in prison to Save the Union until America is placed squarely back on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
“Mad Max” Waters wants Civil War II.
She said she wanted freedom, now she wants your country.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
The issue is not the constitutional right to and freedom of speech.
Clearly the issue is the unconstitutional forcible imposition of DEI as affirmative action, favor, bias, and charity.
The judicial branch made a corrupt, partial decision, not one on the law and merits of the case, not dissimilar to that of the Supreme Court of 1973 on Roe v. Wade, which was proven erroneous by the Supreme Court of 2022.
This is a test
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS THE “SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND”
#74. What is the “test” ascertaining? Affirmative action?
Since George is pretending to be worried about Khalil, I thought I would present this:
He spent his childhood in a Palestinian refugee camp. His soul was so forged. He’s hopeless and would be happier back in Syria?
Anonymous 11:41AM has it exactly right. DEI is just Affirmative Action by another name. In other words racial discrimination. None of that is needed any more. Merit and only merit needs to be the rule. That means you just have to get out there in the public and work your ass off just like anyone else. Do you want things given to you? Well I’m sure most people do to an extent but is it worth it? I would say no. You can learn from your success but you will likely learn even more from your failures. Failure hurts and sometimes it will make you angry. Thats great if it does because anger makes you work harder and show that your failure was a one off and you can come back stronger. America is all about failure, coming back and then succeeding.
The first settlements were nearly wiped out by disease and starvation but people persisted and overcame. Washington lost a lot of battles but won the one that counted. The Union routinely got there asses handed to them by the confederates until Lincoln found the right generals.
In WW2 You started with the fiasco at Pearl Harbor and then there were defeats at Guam, Wake, Philippines, and a host of naval defeats in the Dutch East Indies and severe ship losses by the allies to the Japanese. Coral Sea and Midway were the rare victories. A lot is written about the the Victory at Guadalcanal but virtually no ones pays attention to the many defeats the USN suffered in the waters around Guadalcanal before they learned how to fight the Japanese at nite and with success. Nothing was given. If you failed you died or found yourself floating in the sea alone, injured, burned and hoping for rescue.
Learn from your defeats. Get angry, stronger, tougher, less likely to give way when some one shoves you, work and then you may achieve success. It’s never a given but hopefully achieved.
Hard work is built into every race and ethnic group that I have had experience with ( and I have worked with innumerable different groups) and strangely enough those same people who had success had the same stories irrespective of their race and ethnicity. It’s a formula that works world wide. Some embrace it and progress, some don’t and they seem to do less well.
TRUE, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION HOWEVER, THE FEDERAL CONTITUTION IS THE ” SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND”
“DEI is just Affirmative Action by another name. In other words racial discrimination. None of that is needed any more.”
– GEB
________
You sound like Great Britain and the European Union overtly denying the freedom of speech to citizens.
You appear to favor overtly imposing Karl Marx’s “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Freedom excludes forcible imposition of that which the politburo deems “needed.”
Affirmative action, favor, bias, charity, public assistance, etc., are not and were never constitutional or “needed.”
People must adapt to the outcomes of freedom; freedom does not adapt to people, dictatorship does.
Please cite the Constitution for your prohibition on “racial discrimination” by Article and Section.
Freedom and the freedom of assembly allow people to accept or reject and associate or segregate, including, by extension, the freedom to dissassemble.
Any individual’s arbitrary concept of what is “needed” does not constitute fundamental or statutory law.
Certainly, people who enjoy the freedom of speech enjoy the freedom of thought, discernment, distinction, differentiation, and the freedom of opinion utterly.
People who enjoy private property enjoy the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over that property in exclusion of every other individual.
You may want to review your acceptance, allegiance, and adherence to the Constitution, preferring the Communist Manifesto.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
DEI is systemic, institutional Diversity (e.g. racism, sexism, ageism, transgenderism, nepotism, and other class-disordered ideologies). #BabyLivesMatter
DEI is communism. It is civilizational death. It must be destroyed completely for the sake of the next generation’s survival and liberty.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
– Ronald Reagan
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
– Source unknown
There is no way to justify the ridiculousness of that statement. Diversity, equity, and inclusion is “communism”?!!!
I fear oldman that you have no idea what either of those terms mean.
DEI aims to create fair opportunities for all individuals by addressing systemic barriers and biases that prevent marginalized groups from achieving their full potential. This includes promoting diverse hiring practices, ensuring inclusive work environments, and fostering equitable access to resources and opportunities.
In contrast, communism seeks to eliminate class distinctions and distribute resources equally among all members of society, often through state control. DEI does not advocate for equal outcomes regardless of effort or ability but rather focuses on providing equal opportunities for everyone to succeed based on their merits.
You’re trying to put lipstick on a pig. The pig still stinks and your attempt at deception has failed. Every word I wrote is the truth about what the cultural Marxist DEI movement really is.
People must adapt to the outcomes of Freedom.
Freedom does not adapt to people.
Dictatorship does.
Exactly. DEI is a kind of dictatorship that enforces equality of outcome regardless of merit, instead of equality of opportunity. It is a communist ideology. I speak from experience, having been subjected to DEI training at an employer that I used to work for.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
😂 ^^^ a believer in utopia, Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.
People just don’t want to admit really smart people are an absolute necessity and you aren’t getting us to moon and back in a million years.
DEI is affirmative action across the board. The Democrats pulled out all stops on dreaming up new definitions for the oppressed and down trodden. Just think of how many nonbinary people can fit into the new gimmedat grift shakedown.
Thank you Barrack Oblamo!
Today is Purim, and a commenter below has chosen to promote the interests of a modern-day Haman. Therefore, this content by Israeli Jew Amir Tsarfati is appropriate:
Purim is more than a celebration—it’s a testament to the survival of the Jewish people. A powerful image from March 1945 captures this truth: Jewish soldiers celebrating Purim in the home of Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister. Wrapped in tallit, holding a Torah, and reading the Megillah, they stood in defiance of a regime that had tried to erase them. Nearly 80 years later, IDF soldiers prayed and read the Megillah in Gaza, confronting another enemy bent on their destruction.
For over 3,500 years, empire after empire has risen with the same goal—to destroy the Jewish people. From Pharaoh in Egypt to Haman in Persia, from the Romans to the Nazis, each believed they would be the ones to succeed. Yet, time and again, history tells a different story. The Jewish people endure. They rebuild. They celebrate.
Purim reminds us that survival is not just about overcoming physical threats, but about holding on to identity, faith, and purpose. The enemies of the Jewish people have always tried to erase them, yet today, the Jewish nation stands strong, thriving in its homeland and beyond. The Megillah which is read on Purim, teaches that history is not random—each twist and turn ultimately leads to redemption.
Chag Purim Sameach!
There is no god.
Religious belief of any form is simply a security blanket for weak-minded people who are afraid of the dark.
Good luck with that. You can read about how well that kind of thinking worked out for Haman.
Not to worry. Jesus died on the cross to absolve your sins. You’re still in good shape. Try to concentrate on the thesis you will present on the extent and character of your repentance. Make it good. Be prepared.