On August 14, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland vacated the February 14 “Dear Colleague” Letter and the Certification Requirement, holding that both are unconstitutional, unlawful, and do not comply with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
The “Dear Colleague” Letter (DCL)
The DCL, issued by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) on February 14, 2025, followed a series of Executive Orders regarding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs across the United States. The DCL purports to “clarify and reaffirm the nondiscrimination obligations of schools and other entities that receive federal financial assistance” under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The DCL focused on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (“SFFA”) addressing whether race can justifiably be used in any educational policy and practice.
While SFFA addressed college admissions policies, it did not directly address whether race could be used in any other educational policies/practices.
The DCL applies the SFFA decision “more broadly” than just admissions to any education policies which consider race. In issuing the DCL, OCR characterized DEI programs as unlawfully discriminatory in violation of Title VI. The OCR intended to discourage and penalize policies or practices considering race in education.
Certification Requirement
On April 3, 2025, the USDOE directed each state’s department of education and local education agencies to certify compliance with the Trump Administration’s interpretation of antidiscrimination laws in order to continue to receive federal financial assistance, including requiring each state and school district to certify they understand “the use of [DEI] programs to advantage one’s race over another” violates Title VI.
American Federation of Teachers et al v. U.S. Department of Education et al
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by the American Federation of Teachers, AFT-Maryland, the American Sociological Association, and Eugene School District 4J, challenging the Trump administration’s 2025 Title VI enforcement policies restricting race-related programming and speech in public education, specifically the February 14th DCL and Certification Requirement.
Plaintiffs argued that the OCR reinterpretation in response to SFFA and the subsequent policies chilled lawful speech, threatened federal funding, and had been adopted without rulemaking or statutory authority.
In analyzing these arguments, Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher opined that plaintiffs “have shown that neither challenged agency action was promulgated in accordance with the procedural requirements of the APA, and that both actions run afoul of important constitutional rights.”
Under existing APA framework for establishing agency regulations, the publication of the DCL and Certification Requirement failed to consider “whether they were appropriate based on existing facts and law, or the extent to which they would disrupt schools and teachers’ status quo to the detriment of students’ learning.” Such a failure, according to the Court, warrants these actions “arbitrary and capricious.”
Additionally, the Court concluded that the USDOE sought to exceed its statutory authority by exercising “direction, supervision, or control” over “the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of [schools]” with the broad categorization of classroom practices and speech as discriminatory. And the attempt to preemptively prohibit DEI speech in school “run[s] afoul of the First Amendment by regulating speech based on its content” and viewpoint.
Lastly, the Court ruled that both the attachment of penalties to compliance with the Certification Requirement’s “standardless” terms and the DCL’s lack of defining DEI programs violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process protections against “unreasonably vague laws.”
The decision vacates the DCL and Certification Requirement, holding that both are unconstitutional, unlawful, and the process the administration pursued to create the requirements did not comply with the APA.
Bottom Line For Schools
As in this case, when a court finds agency regulations unlawful, the rules are vacated and set aside entirely, rather than simply preventing their application to the specific individuals involved in the case.
While this ruling is impactful by vacating both the DCL and Certification Requirement, this decision may face further judicial review and scrutiny. As the legal landscape evolves, schools should continue to carefully review and develop policies and programs in accordance with federal, state, and local laws.
