Federal

The The ruling also enjoins the DOL from terminating a federal grant issued to the plaintiff based on language in EO 14151, which requires agencies to terminate all “equity-related” grants.

Background

Plaintiff, Chicago Women in Trades (“CWIT”), provides programming and training to prepare women across the country for jobs in skilled trades such as electric work, plumbing and carpentry. On February 26, 2025, CWIT sued President Trump, the DOL, and several other federal agencies and agency heads, claiming the following provisions of EOs 14173 and 14151 violate the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, constitutional spending powers held by Congress and the separation of powers principle:

The “Certification Provision” (EO 14173 SS 3(b)(iv)), which orders each agency to include certifications in every contract or grant award that the contractor or grantee does not operate illegal DEI programs and that compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws is “material to the government’s payment decisions for purposes of” the False Claims Act;

The “Termination Provision” (EO 14151 SS 2(b)(i)), which orders each “agency, department, or commission head” to “terminate, to the maximum extent allowed by law, all ‘equity-related’ grants or contracts.”

• CWIT sought a declaration that the Certification Provision and Termination Provision are unlawful and unconstitutional, and preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining the Defendants, other than President Trump, from enforcing those sections of the EOs that are found to be unlawful and unconstitutional.

• Court’s Opinion and Reasoning

District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly issued a nationwide injunction enjoining the DOL’s use of the Certification Provision and enjoining the DOL from terminating the WANTO grant based on the Termination Provision in EO 14151.

As to the Certification Provision, the Court found the government’s argument that the certification is permissible because it simply requires the grantee to certify that it is not breaking the law, unavailing. District The The The Higher v. Trump, F. Supp. 3d, No. 25 Feb 25 25 v. Trump, No. 25 Cal.). Other