A Legal Crash Course: Understanding DEIA & Navigating Risk Amid Uncertainty

Sep 26


 A new three-part series from CRSLI to help school leaders navigate the shifting legal landscape with confidence and clarity.

This is the first in a series of three legal briefs CRSLI is publishing alongside our latest podcast episodes to help educators navigate the shifting legal landscape of DEIA in education at a time when it is under attack from those in power.

Authored by the CRSLI Team and Jeremy Chan-Kraushar, an educator and attorney, each brief offers practical guidance and legal context. These briefs are intended as a tool for empowering culturally responsive school leaders to use effective strategies in order to remain steadfast in advancing educational equity while staying within the bounds of current law.

Listen to the full conversation below and download the brief to share with colleagues.

Executive Summary

The current legal landscape surrounding DEIA (diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility), both within the field of education and beyond, is complex yet navigable. Since January 2025, the Federal Department of Education under the Trump administration has issued numerous executive orders attempting to penalize and defund any university or school district promoting ‘DEI’. As of September 24th, at least 54 active lawsuits have challenged federal or state education policies related to DEI. At the same time, a growing body of case law, multi-state attorney-general guidance, and recent district court preliminary injunctions and summary judgments confirm that well-designed DEIA initiatives remain lawful and necessary under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Titles VI & VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and state and local anti-discrimination laws. This brief distills the essentials, identifies common pitfalls of anticipatory acquiescence, and recommends a proactive compliance strategy that also advances equity. The following contains a short problem overview, policy alternatives, and CRSL’s policy recommendations.

Introduction

Ambiguity breeds caution—and direct threats to eliminate federal funding, no matter their legality, can result in harm to students. Educators need clarity on what is permitted, what is required, and how to minimize institutional exposure to threats to the loss of essential funding while honoring commitments to diversity, inclusivity, equity, and cultural responsiveness. It is important to recognize the tangible effects of federal government overreach and the delays in securing relief through litigation that seeks to render executive action procedurally unenforceable and or unconstitutional. Understanding statutory context, legal baselines and recent rulings equips leaders to act boldly, yet lawfully.

Problem Overview

Mixed Messages
  • In addition to issuing multiple Executive Orders aimed at ‘Ending Racial Indoctrination’ in Higher Education and K-12 Schools, on February 14, 2025, the U.S. The Department of Education (ED) issued a “Dear Colleague” Letter accusing DEI efforts of “preferenc(ing) certain racial groups”, but without defining DEI. Sixteen state AGs swiftly refuted this interpretation, asserting such programs “are lawful and beneficial.” The AFT, NEA, and other educational organizations separately sued the ED (updates below).

Litigation Surge
  • There are over 54 pending suits covering the legality of K-12 book bans, DEI programming, alleged discriminatory higher-ed admissions, and faculty speech restrictions. 
  • Numerous national organizations have sued the Trump administration over the constitutionality of their orders. Outcomes have been inconsistent, yet judges have ruled against the Trump administration the vast majority of the time. 
  • Importantly, DEI-favorable case decisions have not garnered as much media attention as the initial threats, fostering uncertainty and anticipatory acquiescence  (EdWeek Tracker). 

Anticipatory Compliance Risks
  • Overall, educational institutions have over-corrected—canceling affinity groups, freezing bias-response teams, disbanding and erasing all programming related to DEIA—potentially exposing themselves to Title VI disparate-impact claims and hostile-environment lawsuits.

Recent Education-related Federal Court Decisions Against DOE’s Unlawful Anti-DEI Actions

The following are a sample of impactful cases recently decided or pending in Federal courts, which can be useful for education leaders watching them play out in the media. For the most up to date lawsuit trackers visit:

  • American Federation of Teachers v. U.S. Department of Education (2025) (Civil Case No.: SAG-25-628) – A judge on Aug. 14, 2025 again halted the Trump administration's ability to enforce its policies that seek to strip out diversity, equity, and inclusion programming in schools based on the Feb. 14 Dear Colleague letter. The judge also stopped the ED’s order to states and school districts to sign anti-DEI certifications.
  • National Education Association v. U.S. Department of Education (2025) (Case No.: 1:25-cv-00091, (D.N.H.)) - A district court judge on April 24 temporarily limited the ED’s ability to enforce the Dear Colleague letter, ‘End DEI’ portal, and follow-up FAQ document.
  • NAACP v. U.S. Department of Education (2025) (Case No.: 1:25-cv-01120) - A Federal judge on April 24 granted a preliminary injunction, blocking ED from enforcing initiatives that seek to prohibit diversity, equity, and inclusion in schools.
  • National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump 1:25-cv-00333 - A broader challenge to the Trump Administration's efforts to dismantle government programs dedicated to DEIA efforts (Executive Orders 14151 ‘Ending Radical Government DEI Programs and Preferencing’ and 14173 ‘Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity’), which direct federal agencies to defund programs. 
    — Plaintiffs argued the orders were unconstitutionally vague, violated the Spending Clause, Due Process Clause, and Separation of Powers, and restricted First Amendment-protected speech. The lawsuit sought an injunction to block enforcement, citing harm to universities, local governments, and advocacy groups.
    — On March 10, 2025, the court issued a preliminary injunction, stating the government could not terminate any contracts or obligations under the termination provision, require compliance certifications related to DEIA, or bring enforcement actions.
    — On March 14, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit lifted the preliminary injunction, allowing the Trump administration to enforce Executive Orders 14151 and 14173 while the appeals process continues. The three-judge panel emphasized that the decision was procedural and not a final ruling on the legality of the executive orders. Two of the justices spoke on the importance of DEIA.
    — Oral arguments in the Fourth Circuit are scheduled for September 11, 2025, and a possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court may occur after the Fourth Circuit's decision. (Civil Rights Litigation Clearing House)

Possible Approaches

A. Full Retreat on DEIA
  • Suspend or eliminate DEIA programming entirely.
  • Consequence: may violate federal and state-specific civil-rights and anti-discrimination laws; harms recruitment and retention; may invite disparate-impact litigation. Often goes against institutionally stated mission, vision, values.

B. Wait-and-See
  • Maintain current programs, alter language when necessary, defer expansion.
  • Consequence: short-term stability, but no strategic alignment; vulnerable if practices lack clear legal rationale.

C. Compliance-Forward Advancement (Recommended)
  • Audit, refine, and document DEIA initiatives to satisfy legal anti-discrimination standards while achieving equity goals.

Recommendations

Conduct an Annual Civil-Rights Audit (Internally and Externally)
  • Map each DEIA activity to a legitimate, non-discriminatory objective (e.g., closing achievement gaps, ADA compliance). Document evidence base. (Internal)
  • Map local, district, and state anti-discrimination laws, civil rights, and diversity and equity-based legal mandates that apply to your school or district academic policy.

Leverage Attorneys' General & Law-Faculty Guidance
  • The February 13, 2025 Multi-State AG memo explicitly endorses DEIA employment practices; cite it when drafting policies.
  • Incorporate language from February memo from 33 law professors ‘DEI Programs Are Lawful Under Federal Civil Rights Laws and Supreme Court Precedent’ in institutional policy manuals. 
  • Consult counsel on design and documentation.

Preserve Academic Freedom

Educate Stakeholders
  • Host semi-annual briefings with counsel for faculty, HR, and board members; distribute resources pre-empt misinformation.
  • For K-12 leaders, know that the federal government cannot withhold Title I/IDEA or other formula funds based on DEI or curriculum choices without following statutory process: written findings of a violation, notice, an opportunity to resolve, a hearing before an administrative law judge, and notice to Congress. Threat letters are not legal orders.
  • For K-12 leaders, know that under the DOE Organization Act and GEPA, the federal government cannot control curriculum or instruction in K‑12. Decisions about what is taught are state/local.

When Necessary, Use Evidence-Driven Criteria
  • Consider and seek feedback on alternate phrasing of language in titles for programs that may trigger strict scrutiny around the use of race, gender, etc.
  • Catalogue and track all DEI-related programming that has been amended, changed, or eliminated due to current threats and investigations.

What remains clearly lawful for districts right now

DEIA done right: Schools can lawfully promote inclusion and equity.
  • Bright-line check: Are individual students being treated differently because of race? Avoid exclusionary, race‑based eligibility. Open affinity groups, inclusive mentoring, and support are generally permissible if open to all and not creating a hostile environment.
  • Label doesn’t decide legality; program structure does. Consult counsel on design and documentation.

Inclusive Curriculum
  • State/local authorities decide content; federal officials cannot ban courses or topics in K‑12.

Conclusion

DEIA is not illegal, either on its face or as implemented by the vast majority of educational organizations across the country. While most recent decisions from Federal courts have provided a level of defense against funding intimidation, particularly for K-12 schools, programs still currently carry risks of federal and state investigation and future loss of funding. Nevertheless, when programs and initiatives are linked to educational needs, implemented through race-neutral means when possible, and periodically evaluated, they align with federal and state anti-discrimination and civil-rights laws and obligations. Policymakers should invest in compliance infrastructure—not retreat from equity—to navigate uncertainty with confidence and integrity.
Jeremy Chan-Kraushar is an educator, attorney, and former Senior Director of Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Education at NYC Public Schools, where he led landmark equity initiatives and designed citywide professional learning. He coordinated programs such as Connected Foundations, Digital Ready, the Competency Collaborative, and the historic Implicit Bias Awareness Initiative. He also founded the Citywide CRSE Professional Learning Community in partnership with NYU, bringing together over 100 equity teams across the district. Over the course of his career, Jeremy has facilitated workshops for more than 10,000 educators and continues to bridge teaching, policy, and law in service of equity and justice.