Landya McCafferty
Chief Judge, US District Court, New Hampshire
“Would the Department conclude that a history teacher leading a class discussion on the economic development of the antebellum south has violated Title VI?” –The Honorable Landya McCafferty in her ruling on DEI and the Department of Education
One of Trump’s earliest executive orders was EO 14190: “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling.” It attacked all forms of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) related to K-12 curriculum and programs in public schools, and stated that federal funding would be cut from schools that continue to use these “radical, anti-American ideologies.” As the EO demanded, the Department of Education (DOE), led by Secretary Linda McMahon, wrote to all schools stating that any consideration of race is discriminatory and a violation of Title VI; McMahon’s “Dear Colleague” letter specified a date when schools were required to certify that they were not using such programs.
In response, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued. Their lawsuit filed challenges the Dept. of Education’s directive on multiple legal grounds. Specifically, it argues that the department overstepped its authority by imposing unfounded and vague legal restrictions that: 1) violate due process and the First Amendment; 2) limit academic freedom and restrict educators’ ability to teach and students’ right to learn; and, 3) unlawfully dictate curriculum and educational programs, exceeding the DOE’s legal mandate.
In late April, US District Judge Landya McCafferty of New Hampshire saw merit in these arguments. She issued a preliminary injunction that block the DOE funding cuts and certification requirements. Quoting from an earlier legal precedent, she wrote: “‘[T]he right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is… one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.’” She also noted that McMahon’s letter was vague, unconstitutional, and unenforceable.
Judge McCafferty received her AB from Harvard and her law degree from Northeastern University. She clerked for Judge Norman H. Stahl, both at the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire and at the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The Department of Education’s actions in this case are part of a concerted effort to end DEI programs and trainings completely, in all educational institutions and all government entities, and they also reflect Project 2025’s policy goals. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the DOE leadership’s actions are intended to eliminate their own specific definition of DEI.
Harvard Business School defines DEI as a set of practices that produce excellent results in business:
Diversity: The presence and participation of individuals with varying backgrounds and perspectives, including those who have been traditionally underrepresented
Equity: Equal access to opportunities and fair, just, and impartial treatment
Inclusion: A sense of belonging in an environment where all feel welcomed, accepted, and respected.
DOE McMahon’s letter, however, follows Trump’s definition of DEI as a form of ideological indoctrination forced on students, stating without evidence: “In many cases, innocent children are compelled to adopt identities as either victims or oppressors solely based on their skin color and other immutable characteristics. In other instances, young men and women are made to question whether they were born in the wrong body and whether to view their parents and their reality as enemies to be blamed.”
Blocking a de facto witch hunt
The threat of withdrawing funding from schools is serious, but was made yet more problematic by the February 27 launch of an END DEI portal on the DOE’s website, where students, parents, or teachers can report any activity that they deem falls under the DEI umbrella – a form of sanctioned witch hunt.
Judge McCafferty’s preliminary injunction order lays out a detailed, probing consideration of those claims. For example, she wrote:
"On the basis of the 2025 Letter’s prohibition on ‘indoctrinat[ing]’ students that the United States is `built upon’ racism, would the Department conclude that a history teacher leading a class discussion on the economic development of the antebellum south has violated Title VI? What about an English teacher assigning students to write a paper comparing the persecution of Tom Robinson – whom Atticus Finch championed in To Kill a Mockingbird – to that of Emmett Till? And how would such lessons even relate to a ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ program?"
She concluded that the loss of such funding “would cripple the operations of many educational institutions.”
The DOE legal case will now proceed as the court considers whether to permanently block the Department’s directive.
Two other judges also rule against Trump DEI action
It’s notable that hours after Judge McCafferty issued her order, two judges followed suit. In Maryland, US District Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher issued an even broader one. She said:
"This Court takes no view as to whether the policies at issue here are good or bad, prudent or foolish, fair or unfair. But this Court is constitutionally required to closely scrutinize whether the government went about creating and implementing them in the manner the law requires. The government did not."
This case is crucial for maintaining the independence of educational bodies and the free dissemination and discussion of multiple viewpoints.
Similarly, Judge Dabney L. Friedrich of the Federal District Court in Washington, DC, found that Trump’s DEI policy provided “no clear boundaries” for what did or didn’t constitute DEI. While McCafferty is an Obama judicial pick, both Gallagher and Friedrich are Trump appointees.
As Center for Black Educator Development CEO Sharif El-Mekki said, “The Department’s attempt to punish schools for acknowledging diversity, equity, and inclusion is not only unconstitutional, but it’s also extremely dangerous – and functions as a direct misalignment with what we know to be just and future forward. [McCafferty’s] decision is a critical step toward protecting the freedom to teach, and the freedom to learn.”
Judge Landya McCafferty’s rigorously composed ruling clarifies the crucial issues involved in the DEI case and spotlights the importance of K-12 teachers having the freedom to present a fully rounded education. Like Gallagher and Friedrich’s rulings, her injunction insists that the President should follow current law, rather than seek to expand executive powers and impose an ideological agenda on public education.