On Friday, the federal appeals court granted the Trump administration a crackdown on the federal government-wide diversity, equity and inclusion program by suspending the decision of a lower Maryland court that blocked the enforcement of President Trump’s executive order.
However, the consent opinion provided by the three judges revealed sharp political boundaries that divide jurists on whether diversity is a nonpartisan value in American life or a political philosophy open to scrutiny.
Trump has made a proactive move to cleanse diversity initiatives from the government. And the administrative authorities threatened federal employees with “bad effects” if they didn’t report it to their colleagues who defy the order. Maryland District Judge Adam B. Abelson wrote in a lower court decision last month that the order sought to punish people for constitutionally protected speeches.
On Friday, a three-judicial panel of judges at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, discovered that the Trump administration “meeted the factors behind the stay” of the order, writing that the order was “clearly limited” and that it “does not aim to establish any effort to promote diversity, equity or inclusion.”
Supreme Court Justice Albert Diaz, who was appointed to the Fourth Circuit by President Barack Obama in 2010, said that while the Trump administration’s supportive ruling was justified, he opposed the attack on diversity initiatives, saying that “people who work to promote diversity, equality and inclusion are worthy of praise, not praise.”
“When this country embraces true diversity, we recognize and respect the social identity of people,” wrote Judge Diaz, who became the first Hispanic legal scholar to serve as the court’s Supreme Court in 2023. “And when that policy is truly inclusive, it creates an environment and culture that is respected and appreciated by everyone. ”
He continued, “What more Americans are?”
Judge Pamela Harris wrote in her own consent opinion, saying she shared the feelings of Justice Diaz.
“My vote should not be understood as an agreement with an attack on the order on efforts to promote diversity, equity and inclusion,” wrote Judge Harris, who was appointed by Obama to court.
However, Judge Alison Jones Rushing, appointed by Trump during her first term, used her own opinion of consent, to criticize Justice Diaz’s declaration of support for diversity, equity and inclusion.
“The views of individual judges as to whether a particular executive action is an appropriate policy are not irrelevant to fulfilling their obligation to award cases or disputes in accordance with the law, and it is an unacceptable consideration,” Judge Rush wrote.
She continued, “The judge’s opinion that the Dei programme is ‘admired and Opprobrium’ should never be useful in determining this case.”
