The president of the United States has the power to make unwise decisions but still must follow procedures to do so, a federal court ruled Aug. 14 in a rebuke to the Trump administration’s efforts to purge public schools of DEI programs.
The case, American Federation of Teachers et al v. U.S. Department of Education et al, was filed by the American Federation of Teachers, AFT-Maryland, the American Sociological Association, and Eugene School District 4J, challenging a “Dear Colleague Letter,” published by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights on Feb. 14.
That letter threatened withholding federal funding from education institutions that teach students critical history, sociology and other lessons that may reference race, provide support to students in the form of diversity, equity or inclusion programming, or attempt to foster inclusive school environments for students of all backgrounds. This was part of the Trump administration’s anti-DEI campaign.
The Department of Education followed this letter with a requirement that every state and school district sign a certification, under threat of termination of funding and criminal penalty, that they would adhere to the administration’s interpretation of civil rights.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland had issued an earlier provisional ruling that varies little from the final ruling because, as the court says, none of the facts or positions of the case have changed.
U.S. District Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher
“The court again must conclude that, by seeking to substantially alter the legal obligations of schools and educators without employing the procedures necessary to implement such a change, the government ran afoul of the (Administrative Procedure Act) procedural requirements. The regulation of speech cannot be done casually,” wrote U.S. District Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher, a Trump appointee who has been praised in the past by evangelical conservatives.
“After ample opportunity to acknowledge the supposedly unintended impacts of these policies on teachers’ freedom of speech, the government still downplays the massive change it announced through the Letter and Certification Requirement. The government did not merely remind educators that discrimination is illegal: it initiated a sea change in how the Department of Education regulates educational practices and classroom conduct, causing millions of educators to reasonably fear that their lawful, and even beneficial, speech might cause them or their schools to be punished. The law does not countenance the government’s hasty and summary treatment of these significant issues.”
Judge Gallagher did not rule on the merits of the Trump administration’s directives because the case was about procedure.
“This case illustrates why following procedures is so important,” she explained. “The stringent procedures outlined by the APA are not hollow gestures designed to manufacture the appearance of fair and reasoned decision making; they exist to ensure that agencies stay within the bounds of their delegated authority and exercise that authority within the constraints of the law more broadly.
“This case illustrates why following procedures is so important.”
“Still here, this court takes no view as to whether the policies at issue in this case are good or bad, prudent or foolish, fair or unfair. But, at this stage too, it must closely scrutinize whether the government went about creating and implementing them in the manner the law requires. Here, it did not. And by leapfrogging important procedural requirements, the government has unwittingly run headfirst into serious constitutional problems.”
The administration ignored federal policy on making sweeping procedural changes, she said, and therefore violated the constitutional rights of educators.
“The administration is entitled to express its viewpoints and to promulgate policies aligned with those viewpoints. But it must do so within the procedural bounds Congress has outlined. And it may not do so at the expense of constitutional rights,” the ruling explains.
Skye Perryman
Since taking office Jan. 20, the Trump administration has sought to overturn decades of precedent and procedure by executive order. That has resulted in more than 300 lawsuits against the administration, such as this one brought by Democracy Forward.
“Today’s final judgment by a federal court affirms what we and the plaintiffs in this case have long known: The Trump-Vance administration’s crusade against civil rights, equity and inclusion is unlawful and threatens all Americans,” said Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward. “This is an invaluable decision that will have a sweeping and positive impact on public schools, teachers and students.
“Threatening teachers and sowing chaos in schools throughout America is part of the administration’s war on education, and today the people won,” she added. “The courage and bravery of our plaintiffs has made a difference in the lives of millions of students.”
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, also lauded the ruling: “Today, the court confirmed the importance of our job as educators to foster opportunity, dignity and engagement. We create safe and welcoming classrooms where students are cared for and accepted. We teach the skills and knowledge they need to navigate a diverse and complex world. And we value critical thinking, which requires us to present history in an open and honest way.”