In DEI news:
On March 12, 2026, a federal judge in the District of Oregon granted a preliminary injunction on First Amendment grounds, holding that various environmental groups were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that the government unconstitutionally terminated their grants.
In the days after the grant terminations, a government official touted the decision as a successful DOGE cost-cutting initiative and stated that the environmental groups “were not aligned with agency priorities” because they included language on their websites stating that they engaged in ‘recruiting, hiring, training and investing in staff and the organization to increase engagement, diversity, accessibility and inclusivity across communities we live and work’ and that they were ‘passionate about inclusion across gender, race, age, religion, identity and experience’.” The organizations also claimed, among other things, that their DEI programs and practices did not include use of federal funds.
In granting the preliminary injunction, the court noted: “In awarding funding, Congress is free to impose constraints to ensure that monies are spent as intended . . . . however, [such] constraints are impermissible where they limit speech beyond the scope of ensuring monies are spent as intended. . . .” The court further noted revocation of grants was likely unconstitutional because it “leverage[d] funding to regulate Plaintiffs’ conduct outside of the contours of [government]-funded programs.”
The court reiterated that the “loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even
minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury” that can support a preliminary injunction.
The full opinion is attached. IAE et al v Burgum et al