Judge declines to block Trump’s anti-DEI contractor order

A federal judge in Maryland declined on Wednesday, October 14, 2026, to temporarily block President Donald Trump’s order restricting what the administration calls racially discriminatory diversity, equity and inclusion practices by companies that contract with the federal government.

U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson denied a preliminary injunction requested by organizations representing university faculty and minority business owners. Reuters and Bloomberg Law separately reported the ruling, which allows the administration to continue implementing the March directive while the lawsuit proceeds.

What the judge decided

Abelson concluded at this stage that the challengers had not shown they were likely to prevail on claims that the order is unconstitutionally broad. According to both reports, he read its operative language as covering intentional discrimination based on race or ethnicity, conduct that federal law already prohibits, rather than every program carrying a DEI label.

That interpretation is important because the plaintiffs argued that the directive assumes DEI programs are unlawful and could reach protected speech. Bloomberg Law reported that Abelson found the order unlikely to violate contractors’ First Amendment free-speech or Fifth Amendment due-process rights. The decision addresses whether enforcement should be paused before final judgment; it does not end the case or establish that every application of the order is lawful.

Democracy Forward, which represents the plaintiffs, said the ruling nevertheless clarified that the order does not impose a general ban on diversity programs. The group also said the court limited the clause to work performed for the government under a contract containing the required language. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to Reuters’ request for comment.

What Trump’s order requires

Trump signed Executive Order 14398, titled “Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors,” on March 26. The Federal Register record defines the prohibited practices as disparate treatment based on race or ethnicity in recruiting, employment, contracting, program participation or the allocation of an organization’s resources.

The directive instructed agencies to add a clause to covered contracts and contract-like instruments. Under that clause, contractors must agree not to engage in the defined conduct while performing the contract, must provide records needed to check compliance and must report certain potential violations by subcontractors.

The order says a contract may be canceled, terminated or suspended for noncompliance and that a contractor may be declared ineligible for future government work. It also characterizes compliance as material to federal payment decisions under the False Claims Act and directs the attorney general to consider enforcement under that statute.

Why the ruling matters

The federal government buys goods and services from companies across defense, technology, logistics, food service and many other industries. The combination of possible contract loss, debarment and False Claims Act exposure gives the dispute consequences beyond the organizations that brought this lawsuit.

At the same time, Abelson’s narrow construction draws a line between intentional race-based disparate treatment and DEI work that does not treat people differently because of race or ethnicity. That distinction may shape how contracting agencies write compliance notices and how companies review recruitment, training, mentoring, vendor and promotion programs.

The legal fight is not over. Reuters reported that 19 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia have filed a separate challenge in the same federal court seeking to stop agencies from changing contracts to implement the order. In the current case, the plaintiffs can continue pursuing their claims on the merits despite losing their request for immediate relief.

The practical result on Wednesday is limited but significant: the contractor requirements remain in effect for now, subject to the court’s narrower reading, while further proceedings determine whether the order and its implementation comply with the Constitution and federal law.

Sources and image credit

Reporting: Reuters and Bloomberg Law. Primary records: Judge Abelson’s order and Executive Order 14398 in the Federal Register.

Image: Eli Pousson for Baltimore Heritage, sign at the Edward A. Garmatz United States Courthouse in Baltimore, May 10, 2019; via Wikimedia Commons. Original file: Wikimedia upload. Dedicated to the public domain under CC0 1.0; cropped to 16:9.