Following up on our timelines documenting DEI-related events impacting the private sector, this fourth installment discusses new developments, including executive order (EO) updates, activity over at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), new cases and significant case updates, and responses from lawmakers and state attorneys general (AG) on the administration’s law firm-related EOs.
As a reminder, the timelines track significant DEI-related events in the private sector pursuant to Executive Order 14173 (see HERE). To get up to speed on matters referenced below, see Part I of our timeline HERE, Part II of our timeline HERE, and Part III of our timeline HERE.
Part IV: Timeline of DEI-Related Events in the Private Sector
- April 23, 2025 (EO issued to eliminate accrediting orgs’ DEI standards): President Trump issued EO14279, Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education, which seeks to prevent accrediting organizations from imposing DEI requirements in accreditation standards. Among other things, the EO directs the Secretary of Education to deny, monitor, suspend, or terminate accreditation recognition for violations of federal civil rights law; directs the AG and Secretary of Education to investigate and take action to terminate unlawful discrimination by higher education institutions; and mandates the Secretary of Education to require institutions to use program-level student outcome data to improve results, without reference to race, ethnicity, or sex.
- April 24, 2025 (lawmakers launch probe into law firm EO settlements): A group of democratic lawmakers sent letters to nine law firms that cut deals with the Trump Administration to avoid or settle EOs targeting the firms (see HERE and HERE). The firms that received the letters include Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Latham & Watkins LLP, Allen Overy Shearman Sterling LLP, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, and Milbank LLP.
The letters aim to “gather comprehensive information with respect to the formation and implementation of [the agreements] and resulting legal and ethical quandaries.” Among other things, the letters urge the firms to disavow the agreements because the agreements are unenforceable, would have negative impacts on the legal system, could potentially expose the firms and its attorneys to civil and criminal liability under state and federal law, and create potentially irresolvable violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The letters request responses from each firm regarding the circumstances and details of the agreements, including each firm’s motivation to enter the agreement, details of the agreement, and measures or mechanisms to ensure effective and ethical client representation.
- April 25, 2025 (EEOC investigates Harvard’s hiring practices): In a letter addressed to Harvard, the EEOC stated its belief that “Harvard may have violated and may be continuing to violate Title VII by engaging in a pattern or practice of disparate treatment against white, Asian, male, or straight employees, applicants, and training program participants in hiring, promotion (including but not limited to tenure decisions), compensation, and separation decisions; internship programs; and mentoring, leadership development, and other career development programs.”
Based on publicly available information, the EEOC cites illustrative examples of “disparate treatment related to faculty, including hiring and promotion” and “disparate treatment related to student employees and training program participants[.]” This investigation follows on the heels of Harvard’s lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s federal funding cuts over alleged “concerns of antisemitism and ideological capture” (see HERE).
- April 28, 2025 (Jenner & Block EO lawsuit oral arguments): Both parties argued their positions in support of their respective motions filed in the case. According to Law360, Judge John D. Bates seemed skeptical of the government’s position, at one point, telling the government to “give me a break” as it argued that the Jenner & Block EO was not retaliatory and that the government is permitted to abstain from doing business with those engaged in racial discrimination. Counsel for Jenner & Block rebutted the government’s argument, stating “the government is performing ‘verbal gymnastics’ to frame the [EO],’” which – as part of the government’s “civil rights crusade” – was issued to punish the firm for exercising its freedom of speech. For a recap of the Jenner & Block matter, see HERE, HERE, and HERE.
- April 29, 2025 (Perkins Coie EO lawsuit expands scope of defendants): The firm filed an amended complaint revising the named defendants from seven federal agencies to encompass all federal agencies and agency heads. In the April 25 memo granting the firm’s motion to amend, Judge Beryl A. Howell explained that “in the event permanent injunctive relief were granted to plaintiff, only the seven federal agencies named as defendants would be subject to enforcement of the injunction order, while any agency not named as a defendant and still subject to [the Perkins Coie EO] could ignore the injunction order . . . . thereby undercutting the effectiveness of any permanent injunction order and this litigation generally.” For a recap of the Perkins Coie matter, see HERE, HERE, and HERE.
- April 29, 2025 (AGs pen letter to law firms targeted by Trump): A coalition of 20 state AGs – from New Jersey, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia – published an open letter to the legal community expressing support for the law firms that have “fought back against President Trump’s unconstitutional attempts to target law firms and lawyers for advocacy the Trump Administration disfavors, and to express [their] profound disappointment that several of the country’s largest law firms have capitulated in the face of these dangerous attacks on the rule of law.”
The letter states that the EOs are a “textbook violation of the First Amendment”; “plainly retaliate against lawyers based on protected speech and association”; are inconsistent with the right to effective counsel”; offend basic principles of due process”; and “undermine bedrock rule-of-law principles.” To the firms that “acceded to the Trump Administration’s demands,” the AGs express their disappointment noting that – in doing so – the firms have only “emboldened [President Trump’s] dangerous and damaging attacks on the legal profession and rule of law” as when “prominent law firms waive the white flag, others will capitulate without a fight.” The AGs conclude by “invit[ing] law firms to engage with [their] offices” to “stand together in preserving the integrity of our legal system.”
For a recap of the EOs issued against law firms, see HERE, HERE, and HERE.
- April 30, 2025 (Susman Godfrey EO lawsuit oppositions filed): The firm filed an opposition to the government’s April 23 motion to dismiss reiterating its position that the EO is “blatantly unconstitutional” and further noting that the government has “barely acknowledge[d] the [Susman Godfrey EO’s] stated purpose of [punishing the firm] . . . for representing Dominion Voting Systems and state elections officials in defending the integrity of the 2020 election.” On the same day, the government filed its own opposition to the firm’s April 23 motion for summary judgment and permanent injunction arguing that the EO “fall[s] well within the bounds of established Executive authority” and that “[t]here is no First Amendment right to silence the Government.” For a recap of the Susman Godfrey matter, see HERE.
- May 1, 2025 (judge won’t budge on anti-DEI preliminary injunction): In National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al., Judge Adam B. Abelson issued an order denying plaintiffs’ request to vacate his February 21 preliminary injunction – which blocked key provisions of President Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders but was stayed by the Fourth Circuit (see HERE) – in order to file an amended complaint with new evidence that would “specifically address the concerns expressed by [the Fourth Circuit] that granted Defendants’ motion to stay [the injunction] pending appeal” (see HERE).
Judge Abelson stated it would not materially change the preliminary injunction analysis and that plaintiffs have already “shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their facial free speech and vagueness claims.” Judge Abelson concluded that the appropriate course is to deny the motion “and allow the parties to brief the issues before the Fourth Circuit.”
- May 2, 2025 (Perkins Coie emerges victorious in EO lawsuit): Judge Howell granted Perkins Coie’s motion for summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction blocking enforcement of the Perkins Coie EO. In a powerful and strongly worded opinion, Judge Howell likened the government’s actions to those of a Shakesperean character who – as a “rebel leader intent on becoming king” – devised a tactic to “kill all the lawyers” as “‘a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government.’” Judge Howell noted that the Perkins Coie EO is unconstitutional and retaliatory and, “[s]imply put, government officials ‘cannot . . . use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.’”
Among other things, Judge Howell’s order permanently enjoins the government from implementing, enforcing, using, or considering the Perkins Coie EO; directs the government to rescind all guidance or direction to government offices or personnel to implement or enforce the Perkins Coie EO; directs the government to immediately notify all government offices and personnel that the Perkins Coie EO is unlawful and void; and directs the government to reverse or prevent the implementation or enforcement of the Perkins Coie EO. Notably, this includes directing the EEOC to immediately cease any investigation of the firm made pursuant to the Perkins Coie EO.
- May 2, 2025 (judge won’t block EOs terminating funds for DEI programs): In National Urban League et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al. (see HERE), Judge Timothy J. Kelly issued an opinion and order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of EO14151, (Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing), EO14168 (Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government), and EO14173 (Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity). For additional information on EOs 14168 and 14173, see HERE.
While the plaintiffs argued that the EOs would “prevent them from fulfilling their organizational missions” because they “incorporate DEI into their work” and “also contract with and receive funding from several federal agencies[,]” Judge Kelly found the plaintiffs lacked standing and “are not likely to prevail on the merits” because the EOs “inflict no concrete harm” on the plaintiffs; the “government need not subsidize the exercise of constitutional rights to avoid infringing them[;] and the Constitution does not provide a right to violate federal antidiscrimination law.”
- May 6, 2025 (judge blocks government from withholding grants over DEI policies): In a decision impacting the public sector – but relevant to recent actions in the private sector – U.S. District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump Administration from conditioning federal funding on the requirement to adhere to anti-DEI policies. Judge Rothstein stated the directive – which would cut funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to several cities and counties for homeless services – is likely unconstitutional as the conditions were not approved by Congress, are not closely related to the purposes of the grants or programs funded, and do not make the grants more effective or efficient.
Judge Rothstein’s reasoning aligns with those expressed by Harvard in a complaint in which the university argued there is no “rational connection between [the government’s] antisemitism concerns and the medical, scientific, technological, and other research it has frozen that aims to save American lives” (see HERE).
- May 8, 2025 (Susman Godfrey EO lawsuit updates): Both parties argued their positions in support of their respective motions filed in the case. According to Law360, Judge Loren L. AliKhan appeared inclined to allow the firm to proceed or grant its summary judgment motion altogether. When pressed about the firm’s alleged “unlawful discrimination,” the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) attorney referenced the firm’s pledge regarding “underrepresented groups” to which the DOJ eventually conceded that interviewing applicants from “underrepresented” backgrounds would not be a problem under Title VII. In response, Judge AliKhan questioned if the DOJ agreed that “the only example of this purported unlawful discrimination is not itself unlawful discrimination[.]” The DOJ was unable to provide a response.
On the same day, Judge AliKhan issued an order granting the firm’s motion to amend its complaint “in order to add as named defendants additional federal entities subject to [the EO], as well as the head officers of those entities in their official capacities.” The firm filed its amended complaint on May 9 and amended motion for summary judgment and permanent injunction on May 12.
- May 12, 2025 (44 BigLaw firms hit with EEOC charge): On behalf of three incoming law school students, Americans for Equal Opportunity filed a charge with the EEOC against Sponsors for Educational Opportunity (SEO) and its 44 partner law firms alleging the students “experienced racial discrimination while applying for SEO’s 2025 Law Fellowship Program[.]”
Employer Takeaways
As the courts continue to review the constitutionality of the Trump Administration’s anti-DEI actions, employers should not abandon their policies and programs that ensure all employees and applicants are afforded equal opportunities, regardless of their race, sex, or any other protected characteristic. Regardless of labels, these initiatives are not only lawful but – in certain instances – necessary to fulfill an employer’s obligations to comply with federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws, all of which remain in full effect.
- For recommendations to promote “effective and lawful [DEI] practices,” see guidance from 10 former DOL officials HERE.
- For a framework on “lawful ways to increase diversity and remove barriers to equal employment opportunity” in the workplace, see guidance from 10 former EEOC officials HERE.
For best practices to implement lawful DEI initiatives issued by 16 AGs, see HERE.
If you have any questions related to any timeline events or its impact on your organization, or would like to conduct an audit of your organization’s efforts to ensure all employees and applicants are afforded equal opportunity in the workplace, please reach out to the NFC Attorney with whom you typically work or call us at 973.665.9100 or 619.292.0515.
