4th Circuit allows Trump's DEI executive orders to proceed

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision on Friday, February 6, 2026. The three-judge panel ruled unanimously to overturn the lower court's preliminary injunction. Circuit Judge ADAlbert Diaz wrote the opinion for the panel. This allows Trump's executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs to proceed while legal challenges continue.

The case originated when the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education and the City of Baltimore sued to block Trump's DEI orders. U.S. District Judge AAAdam Abelson granted a preliminary injunction in February 2025. He found the orders were vague and likely violated plaintiffs' First Amendment free speech and Fifth Amendment due process rights. The injunction blocked federal agencies from enforcing key provisions nationwide.

The appellate panel reversed based on the distinction between facial challenges and as-applied challenges to laws and executive orders. A facial challenge argues the entire order is unconstitutional in all applications. An as-applied challenge argues the order is unconstitutional as applied to specific people in specific circumstances. Circuit Judge Diaz wrote the challengers failed to show the orders facially violated their constitutional rights.

The court's reasoning centered on how directly the orders affect plaintiffs. Diaz wrote that Trump's directives are instructions to federal agencies, not direct commands to the plaintiffs. Because the orders only indirectly require compliance from grant recipients and contractors, plaintiffs can't mount facial challenges. They must instead wait for agencies to apply the orders to them, then challenge those specific enforcement actions.

This creates a practical timeline where executive orders take effect immediately while challenges proceed case-by-case. Federal agencies can now enforce Trump's DEI restrictions on government contractors and grant recipients. Plaintiffs who believe enforcement violates their rights must sue after agencies take action against them. Each lawsuit addresses only that specific application, not the order's overall constitutionality.

The decision reflects courts' general preference for narrow challenges over broad ones. Judges typically want to see concrete harm from actual enforcement before ruling on constitutionality. This principle, called 'constitutional avoidance,' encourages courts to resolve cases on narrow grounds rather than making sweeping constitutional rulings. It also respects executive branch authority by allowing policy implementation unless specific applications prove unconstitutional.

Trump signed the anti-DEI executive orders on days one and two of his second term in January 2025. The orders broadly restrict government agencies and private entities receiving federal funding from practices the administration deems illegal and discriminatory. They target diversity training programs, hiring practices that consider race or gender, and equity initiatives at federal contractors and grant recipients.

The ruling creates asymmetric power dynamics between the executive branch and those subject to its orders. Executive orders take effect immediately upon signing. Challengers must wait for enforcement, then sue individually. Even if one plaintiff wins an as-applied challenge, the order remains valid for everyone else. Only a facial challenge declaring the entire order unconstitutional would block it for all affected parties, but courts make that very difficult.