President Donald Trump won a rare victory at the district court level on Friday when a judge in Washington, D.C., allowed the government to move full steam ahead with a series of executive orders aimed at rooting out “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) initiatives.

On Feb. 19, the National Urban League and others sued the Trump administration over several executive orders ending DEI programs in federal government contracts, barring the government from contracting with vendors who have internal DEI programs or that “promote the idea that transgender people exist,” and directing administrative agencies to only recognize “two sexes.”

In the original petition and a later-filed motion for a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs alleged eight provisions in Trump’s anti-DEI orders ran afoul of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause and the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, among other issues.

In a 58-page memorandum opinion, U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, rejected those claims, both procedurally and for their legal arguments.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

“For one reason or another, Plaintiffs’ claims are likely to fail,” the judge writes. “Some falter on standing—a prerequisite to success on the merits—and others on the underlying First and Fifth Amendment claims.”

The majority of the court’s opinion strikes a blow for the long-aggressive nature of Article III standing, which is widely understood by legal scholars as “conservative standing doctrine.”

This judicial theory was created in two cases from the 1920s by conservative judges who sought to restrain the use and limits of constitutional redress. In other words, standing doctrine was created – and has over time been honed and sustained – to limit citizens from suing the government over perceived violations of their rights. While technically procedural in nature, as opposed to relying on underlying arguments in a dispute, standing arguments are fact-intensive.

Kelly, for his part, quickly dispenses with how he views the facts in the case brought by the nonprofit organizations.

“For half the challenged provisions, Plaintiffs fail to establish a prerequisite to success on the merits: standing,” the opinion goes on. “Presidential directives to subordinates that inflict no concrete harm on private parties—or at least not on these parties—do not present a justiciable case or controversy.”

In the present case, the judge found many of the challenged provisions had to do with changing the government’s own behavior, and do not result in what, in standing doctrine legalese, is known as an “injury in fact.” This state of affairs, rather, turns the plaintiffs into “at most ‘concerned bystanders’ to internal Executive Branch processes.”

“Everything is intra-governmental,” the judge muses.

More Law&Crime coverage: ‘The opposite of diversity is segregation’: Judge castigates Trump over anti-DEI policies, but says he cannot intervene

In sum, Kelly found four of the challenged provisions asked “nothing from Plaintiffs—no compliance, no changed behavior, nothing at all” because those provisions are “not aimed at them” but instead tell “only the agencies to do something.”

For the remaining four challenged provisions, however, the court determined the plaintiffs did, in fact, have standing.

But the court still rejected their arguments as legally deficient.

“Plaintiffs have not shown that the provisions threaten a protected liberty or property interest—a threshold requirement for due process claims,” Kelly’s opinion continues. “And even if they had, Plaintiffs’ vagueness challenge fails for independent reasons. The First Amendment claim, moreover, clashes with two settled rules: the government does not abridge the right to free speech by choosing not to subsidize it, and that right does not permit Plaintiffs or anyone else to violate federal anti-discrimination law.”

One of the major problems, the court says, is that the plaintiffs argued a bit too much, resting their claims on so-called “facial rather than as-applied challenges.”

In lawsuits, government action can be challenged facially, meaning in general, or as-applied, meaning in a specific circumstance.

In the present case, Kelly suggests the plaintiffs would have been better off limiting their claims to more specific problems. Instead, they argued, as the judge framed the issues, that each of the challenged anti-DEI provisions “is unconstitutional in all its applications.”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Which firms, legal groups, law profs signed…

Law Firms

Which firms, legal groups, law profs signed briefs supporting Perkins Coie in challenge to punitive Trump order?

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 8, 2025, 8:52 am CDT

Amicus briefs supporting Perkins Coie are piling up in its challenge to a punitive order against the law firm signed by President Donald Trump.

The briefs have been filed by more than 500 firms, more than 360 law professors, nearly 350 former judges and a “cross-ideological group” that includes the American Civil Liberties Union and the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest firm, report Law.com (here and here); Bloomberg Law; Reuters (here and here); Law360; and press releases by Law Forward, a nonprofit organization, and the ACLU.

The firm brief is mostly signed by smaller and midsize firms. According to Law.com, larger and well-known firms that signed are:

  • Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer

  • Covington & Burling

  • Crowell & Moring

  • Davis Wright Tremaine

  • Fenwick & West

  • Foley Hoag

  • Freshfields US

  • Hanson Bridgett

  • Jenner & Block

  • Manatt, Phelps & Phillips

  • Munger, Tolles & Olson

  • Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler

  • Stoel Rives

  • Susman Godfrey

  • Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr

Perkins Coie sued after Trump issued an executive order that suspended Perkins Coie’s security clearance, limited access to federal buildings by its lawyers, blocked government hiring of firm employees, and required federal agencies to take steps to terminate contracts with the firms and their clients—if the firm provided services in connection with the client contract.

WilmerHale and Jenner & Block also sued after they were targeted with executive orders. Covington & Burling was also targeted in a more limited executive order; it has not filed suit.

As of April 3, four other firms reached deals with Trump to avoid punitive measures. The deals included pledges of pro bono support on issues supported by Trump and the firms.

A Perkins Coie spokesperson told Reuters that the firm was grateful to the firms that signed the amicus brief “in our challenge to the unconstitutional executive order and the threat it poses to the rule of law.”

Above the Law is compiling firms’ reactions to actions by the Trump administration in its “BigLaw Spine Index.” Law.com has published a timeline of the executive orders and firms’ response to them.

The legal advocacy groups that signed the ACLU brief are:

  • The ACLU

  • The ACLU of the District of Columbia

  • The Cato Institute

  • The Electronic Frontier Foundation

  • The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

  • The Institute for Justice

  • The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University

  • The National Coalition Against Censorship

  • The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press

  • The Rutherford Institute

  • The Society for the Rule of Law Institute

Judges who signed an amicus brief include retired state supreme court and appellate justices and former federal judges. Among them are:

  • Retired Judge J. Michael Luttig of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Virginia

  • Retired Judge Diana Gribbon Motz of the 4th Circuit at Richmond, Virginia

  • Retired Judge Kathleen M. O’Malley of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

  • Retired Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie of the 3rd Circuit at Philadelphia

  • Retired U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York

Law professors who signed the professor brief are from law schools that include Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, Stanford Law School, the University of California, the Georgetown University Law Center, the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, Cornell Law School, the New York University School of Law, the University of Chicago Law School, Columbia Law School and the University of Michigan Law School.

Professors who signed the brief include Michael C. Dorf of Cornell Law School, Mark A. Lemley of Stanford Law School, Owen Fiss of Yale Law School, Harold Hongju Koh of Yale Law School, Leah Litman of the University of Michigan Law School, Eugene Volokh of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law and Pamela S. Karlan of Stanford Law School.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. New Jersey bar can reserve positions for…

First Amendment

New Jersey bar can reserve positions for members of underrepresented groups, appeals court says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 23, 2024, 2:22 pm CST

The New Jersey State Bar Association has a First Amendment right to expressive association that would be violated if forced to change a diversity program for leadership positions, a state appeals court has ruled.

The Superior Court of New Jersey’s Appellate Division ruled Dec. 20 against Rajeh A. Saadeh in his lawsuit alleging that the program violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Law360 has coverage.

The diversity program reserves 13 out of 94 leadership positions in the bar for members of certain underrepresented groups. Saadeh is a Palestinian Muslim American attorney who was not eligible for the positions.

The bar association had maintained that it had a First Amendment right to select leaders consistent with its values regarding diversity in the legal profession. The appeals court agreed.

Requiring the New Jersey State Bar Association to change or eliminate its program would “significantly burden the expression of its views, thus running afoul of the association’s First Amendment right of expressive association,” the appeals court said.

The appeals court cited the 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, which held that the Scouts had a First Amendment right of expressive association that protected its decision to oust an openly gay assistant scoutmaster.

“Applying Dale to the undisputed facts in this record establishes beyond peradventure that the bar association qualifies as an expressive association, and that compelling it to end its practice of ensuring the presence of designated underrepresented groups in its leadership would unconstitutionally infringe its ability to advocate the value of diversity and inclusivity in the association and more broadly in the legal profession,” the appeals court said.

The appeals court did not decide whether the program amounted to unlawful discrimination because of the First Amendment holding.

A trial judge had ruled that the diversity program was a “quota system” that violated the law.

Saadeh “will promptly seek correction” of the appellate decision, Lindsay McKillop, his lawyer, told Law360.

The New Jersey State Bar Association applauded the decision in a Dec. 20 press release.

The battle over the dismissal of the indictment in the Mar-a-Lago documents case is heating up in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, as a group of conservative amici curiae, or friends of the court, on Friday argued to maintain the pro-Donald Trump status quo.

In their 35-page brief in support of the defendants, several right-wing nonprofit groups — led by 501(c)(3) America’s Future — argue that special counsel Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed to his position in violation of the appointments and appropriations clauses.

“Because there was no legislation specifically creating an office of Special Counsel when the Attorney General appointed Mr. Smith on November 18, 2022, the challenged appointment must be invalidated because Congress had not established the office of Special Counsel as the Appointments Clause requires,” the filing reads.

As is often the case in the several-months-long litigation over the constitutional vitality of Smith’s appointment, the appropriations clause argument is a knock-on, or derivative, claim. To hear opponents of the special counsel’s office tell it, any spending that occurred after the unlawful appointment is, perforce, also unlawful.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Federal judges wrongly engaged in ‘oral-argument…

Judiciary

Federal judges wrongly engaged in ‘oral-argument affirmative action,’ group’s misconduct complaint says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 29, 2024, 3:15 pm CST

The conservative legal group America First Legal has filed a misconduct complaint against three federal judges in Illinois who issued orders intended to encourage “newer, female and minority attorneys” to argue motions.

The complaint, filed with the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, contends the judges are violating federal judicial conduct rules, violating the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment, and discriminating on the basis of race and sex, according to a press release. Reuters and Law360 are among the publications with coverage.

The judges, all from the Southern District of Illinois, are Nancy J. Rosenstengel, Staci M. Yandle and David W. Dugan. Rosenstengel is the chief judge.

Their policies provide that, after a motion is briefed, a party may alert the court that a newer, female or minority attorney will argue the motion if a request for argument is granted. The court will then grant the request, if practicable; will strongly consider granting extra time for argument; and will permit more experienced lawyers to assist.

“The judges’ policies are essentially oral-argument affirmative action for lawyers,” the complaint says. The policies violate judicial canons requiring judges to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and the impartiality of the judiciary, according to the complaint.

America First Legal has also targeted diversity efforts by corporations and a law review.

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, commonly known as ASPCA, raises hundreds of millions each year to rescue and protect animals. A CBS News investigation looked into the charity’s spending. Jim Axelrod reports.