Former President Donald Trump notched a significant legal win on Friday when a federal judge in Washington, D.C., allowed his administration to continue enforcing a series of controversial executive orders aimed at eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in federal government contracting.
The lawsuit, filed on Feb. 19 by the National Urban League and several advocacy groups, targeted Trump’s directives that banned federal contracts with companies promoting DEI principles, including support for transgender identities, and limited federal agencies to recognizing only two sexes. Plaintiffs argued the orders violated the First and Fifth Amendments, claiming they infringed on free speech and due process rights.
But U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly — a Trump appointee — issued a 58-page ruling dismantling the plaintiffs’ arguments both on procedural and substantive grounds.
“For one reason or another, Plaintiffs’ claims are likely to fail,” Kelly wrote, citing lack of legal standing and weak constitutional arguments. Half of the claims, he said, failed because the plaintiffs couldn’t demonstrate they were directly harmed — a critical requirement under standing doctrine.
“Presidential directives to subordinates that inflict no concrete harm on private parties… do not present a justiciable case or controversy,” Kelly stated, adding that the groups involved were merely “concerned bystanders” to internal government decisions.
In four of the eight contested provisions, Kelly determined that the orders simply instructed government agencies to act in specific ways and imposed no obligations or changes on the plaintiffs themselves. For the remaining four provisions — where standing was established — the judge still found the legal claims lacking.
The plaintiffs, Kelly said, failed to show that the orders violated any constitutionally protected liberty or property interests. Their due process and free speech challenges were undermined by two established legal principles: the government isn’t required to fund or subsidize speech, and rejecting funding does not equate to suppressing expression.
Kelly also criticized the plaintiffs’ sweeping approach, noting they argued that the provisions were unconstitutional in every possible application — a high bar that requires showing the orders are invalid in all circumstances. “That is a big claim,” the judge remarked, “and it comes at a cost.”
Ultimately, the court ruled that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated how the termination of contracts or grants under these executive orders would violate anyone’s protected rights.
This decision, while procedural in part, hands Trump’s administration a rare courtroom success in its ongoing efforts to dismantle DEI frameworks within federal operations. It also highlights how standing doctrine — often cited as a conservative legal filter — can be a powerful barrier to challenging executive power.