A federal District Court in Northern California (Edward M. Chen) has enjoined efforts by AmeriCorps to include anti-DEI provisions in grant contracts with the San Francisco Unified School District and the City of Santa Fe. It has found that the grantees are likely to prevail on their claim that the language of President Trump’s Executive Orders seeking to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion activities in federal programs is unconstitutionally vague.
AmeriCorps was formed pursuant to 1993 legislation to encourage citizens, regardless of age, income, geographic location, or disability, to engage in national service, including programs to “create greater community through the use of organized teams of participants of varied social and economic backgrounds, skill levels, physical and development capabilities, ages, ethnic backgrounds and genders.” Its application form for grants specifically gave points for diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.
In February, AmeriCorps issued a directive to grantees requiring them to choose among three statements: (1) that their program complies with “all administration Executive Orders and does not include any activities that promote DEI activities,” (2) that the program is currently noncompliant and requires an amendment; or (3) that the grantee relinquishes the grant. Grantees had a week to make the certification.
After being unable to obtain an explanation from AmeriCorps about what was required, the plaintiffs filed a complaint challenging the Directive. The Court issued a temporary restraining order and has now issued a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the demands of AmeriCorps.
On the critical issues of whether the plaintiffs are likely to prevail at trial, the Court ruled that they are likely to prevail in their argument that AmeriCorps lack statutory to impose anti-DEI conditions that are “antithetical to its statutory purposes.” “At bottom, consideration of diversity, equity, and inclusion are not incidental, but integral to AmeriCorps’ statutory authority,” the Court said.
It also found that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their substantive constitutional claims because the new grant conditions “are insurmountably ambiguous and do not relate sufficiently to AmeriCorps’ purpose.” The Court noted that the directive imposes a prohibition on programs that “promote DEI activities” but omits the provision of the Executive Order prohibiting only DEI activities which would violate “applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.” “The Directive,” the Court said, “is completely unmoored to existing law, leaving grantees to guess what conduct ‘promotes DEI activities’ irrespective of whether it violates existing applicable law.” (San Francisco Unified School District v. AmeriCorps, N.D. CA, No. 25-cv-02425, 6/18/25.)
Add new comment