Huge win for President Trump and America.
A federal appeals court on Friday evening lifted a block on two of President Trump’s executive orders aimed at eliminating Marxist Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies.
President Trump previously signed two Executive Orders that instructed agencies in the executive branch to end discriminatory DEI policies: One EO directed DEI policies to be eliminated in federal agencies and the other EO targeted recipients of federal grants.
Last month, a Biden-appointed federal judge entered a preliminary injunction against Trump’s Executive Orders.
On Friday evening, a three-judge panel on the Virginia-based 4th Circuit Court of Appeals – Chief Judge Albert Diaz (Obama), Judge Pamela Harris (Obama), and Judge Allison Blair Jones Rushing (Trump) granted the government’s motion for a stay of the preliminary injunction.
This is not a final decision on the merits of the case. The circuit court judges merely lifted the preliminary injunction as the case makes its way through the legal system.
The case was brought by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland and three national associations.
Although the judge sided with the Trump Administration, the two left-leaning judges ranted on and on about how wonderful DEI policies are — with one judge absurdly claiming DEI policies “create an environment and culture where everyone is respected and valued.”
“What could be more American that that?” Chief judge Diaz wrote in a concurring opinion.
Judge Harris, the Obama appointee, said Trump’s Executive Orders do not violate the First or Fifth Amendment.
“As the government explains, the challenged Executive Orders, on their face, are of distinctly limited scope. The Executive Orders do not purport to establish the illegality of all efforts to advance diversity, equity or inclusion, and they should not be so understood. Instead, the so-called “Certification” and “Enforcement Threat” provisions apply only to conduct that violates existing federal anti-discrimination law. Nor do the Orders authorize the termination of grants based on a grantee’s speech or activities outside the scope of the funded activities. Rather, the “Termination” provision directs the termination of grants, subject to applicable legal limits, based only on the nature of the grant-funded activity itself. On this understanding, the government has shown the requisite likelihood that the challenged provisions do not on their face violate the First or Fifth Amendment,” Judge Pamela Harris wrote in the opinion reviewed by The Gateway Pundit.
Judge Rushing, the Trump appointee, said she took issue with scope of the preliminary injunction.
“I concur in the order granting the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal. The scope of the preliminary injunction alone should raise red flags: the district court purported to enjoin nondefendants from taking action against nonplaintiffs. Cf., e.g., Labrador v. Poe ex rel. Poe, 144 S. Ct. 921 (2024) (mem.). But, more than that, the judges of this panel unanimously agree that the entire substance of the preliminary injunction must be stayed, not just trimmed back in scope. That’s because the government has made a “strong showing” that it “is likely to succeed on the merits” and that the district court erred in concluding otherwise,” Judge Rushing wrote.
Judge Rushing scolded the other judges and reminded them not lose sight of their constitutional role.
“We must not lose sight of the boundaries of our constitutional role and the imperative of judicial impartiality. Any individual judge’s view on whether certain Executive action is good policy is not only irrelevant to fulfilling our duty to adjudicate cases and controversies according to the law, it is an impermissible consideration. A judge’s opinion that DEI programs “deserve praise, not opprobrium” should play absolutely no part in deciding this case,” Judge Rushing wrote.
Read the full article here