California judge deals major blow to Trump’s war against DEI on the West Coast

A federal judge in California has dealt a major setback to the Trump administration’s effort to tie billions of dollars in federal grants to its crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion programs, ruling the White House exceeded its authority by imposing the new conditions on cities and counties on the West Coast.

US District Judge William Orrick on Thursday granted a preliminary injunction barring the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice and the Interior from enforcing the challenged “anti-DEI” grant conditions against 11 local governments, writing the restrictions likely violate both the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. 

“What defendants seek to do likely violates the Constitution (separation of powers and Spending Clause) and the Administrative Procedures Act,” Orrick wrote in the 68-page order.

The lawsuit was brought by the cities of Fresno, Santa Clara, Redwood City, Santa Cruz, Stockton, Beaverton, Corvallis and Hillsboro, along with Los Angeles, San Diego and Santa Barbara counties.

They argued the Trump administration unlawfully attached ideological conditions to grants approved by Congress for public safety, disaster preparedness, policing, fire protection, water conservation and crime victim services.

Orrick agreed, finding the administration’s new requirements “have nothing to do with or contradict the Congressional purpose” behind the grant programs. 

The judge also sided with the municipalities’ argument that Congress — not the executive branch — controls federal spending.

“Plaintiffs maintain that ‘[n]othing in the Constitution or federal statutes authorizes Defendants to impose the Challenged Conditions, or anything of the kind, on funds administered through congressional grant programs,’” Orrick wrote. “I agree.”

The challenged policies required grant recipients to certify they do not operate programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws.

Other conditions sought to encourage cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and required compliance with executive orders related to federal grants. 

The judge concluded that allowing the conditions to remain in place would cause immediate harm to local governments and the communities they serve.

“The result of their imposition of the challenged conditions would irreparably injure plaintiffs and their ability to provide critical services, as well as would threaten public safety,” Orrick wrote. 

The grants affected by the ruling fund a broad range of programs, including anti-terrorism initiatives, disaster mitigation, flood protection, wildfire preparedness, law enforcement training, forensic science, human trafficking prevention and services for crime victims.

The court found that many of the administration’s new conditions conflicted with the very statutes Congress enacted to establish those programs. 

In weighing whether to issue the injunction, Orrick said the public interest favored preserving funding for essential local services.

“So does the general public, which is interested in seeing its communities receive funding for critical infrastructure and public safety initiatives — funding that is paid for by their federal tax dollars,” he wrote.

The decision marks the latest judicial rebuke of the Trump administration’s efforts to condition federal funding on compliance with its anti-DEI agenda.

Federal judges have issued similar rulings in other cases challenging the administration’s grant restrictions, including a recent decision in Seattle blocking comparable conditions attached to grants from other federal agencies.

The preliminary injunction will remain in place while the lawsuit proceeds. The Justice Department is expected to appeal.

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters