American federation of schools sues over dei
Executive summary
The American Federation of Teachers led a legal campaign challenging the U.S. Department of Education’s “Dear Colleague” anti‑DEI guidance, arguing the guidance was vague, exceeded the Supreme Court’s admissions ruling, and threatened schools with the loss of federal funds; courts enjoined key parts of the policy and the department dropped its appeal in January 2026 [1] [2] [3]. The lawsuit forms part of a broader wave of litigation from civil‑rights and education groups that has temporarily paused administration efforts to purge or restrict DEI language and programs in federally funded education programs [4] [5] [6].
1. How the dispute began: Education Department’s anti‑DEI guidance and demands
In February 2025 the Department issued a four‑page “Dear Colleague” letter telling K‑12 schools and colleges that treating students differently on the basis of race for goals such as diversity or equity could violate Title VI and might jeopardize federal funding, and it asked some institutions to certify they didn’t engage in DEI practices — a move critics called an ultimatum that forced quick compliance or risk of penalties [1] [7] [8]. The agency framed that guidance as an extension of the Supreme Court’s SFFA v. Harvard admissions decision, asserting race‑conscious practices across admissions, hiring, scholarships and “all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life” were suspect [1] [8].
2. The AFT’s legal challenge: claims of vagueness, overreach and constitutional harms
The American Federation of Teachers, joined by the American Sociological Association and a public school district, filed suit arguing the guidance was unconstitutionally vague, contradicted statutory law, misapplied Title VI, and threatened First and Fifth Amendment protections by chilling speech and due‑process rights; the complaint pointed out the guidance even appeared to reclassify long‑standing supports such as Equity Assistance Centers as violations despite their authorization under other law [1] [7]. AFT leaders characterized the memo as an attempt to “rewrite and redefine opportunity to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion” and to intimidate districts with penalties if they failed to comply [9] [4].
3. The courts step in: injunctions, rulings and the Maryland decision
Federal courts moved quickly: a nationwide preliminary injunction had already paused enforcement of certain measures in April 2025, and in August a U.S. district judge in Maryland struck down two administration actions aimed at eliminating DEI programs, finding multiple legal defects in the department’s approach and siding with plaintiffs on grounds including viewpoint and speech concerns [4] [2] [10]. That Maryland decision became the focal point of an appeal the Education Department later chose not to pursue, effectively preserving the district court’s block on the department’s expansive interpretation [3] [11].
4. Administration reaction and strategic retreat
After the district court losses and additional suits from groups such as the NAACP, which alleged the department’s policies advanced a misinterpretation of civil‑rights laws and harmed students of color, the department filed then withdrew an appeal in January 2026, and the administration has separately faced setbacks in efforts to strip DEI‑related language from other federal programs such as Head Start [5] [6] [3]. Reporters note the department did not publicly explain in detail why it dropped the appeal, and coverage emphasizes the withdrawal as a significant pause in a multi‑front campaign against DEI in education [11] [8].
5. Stakes and next chapters: what this litigation means for schools and policy
For schools and colleges, the immediate effect is relief from a looming certification deadline and the threat of funding cuts, but the litigation leaves unsettled questions about how far Title VI and Supreme Court precedent limit race‑conscious efforts to address inequality — matters likely to see renewed legal and political battles as other agencies and states pursue parallel policies or challenges [1] [2] [12]. Reporting shows multiple plaintiffs and civil‑rights groups remain active in court, signaling the dispute over DEI in education is paused, not resolved, and future rulings or policy shifts could again force schools to navigate unclear legal terrain [4] [5].