Plaintiff challenges President Trump's executive orders on "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing" and "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity," arguing that key provisions are unconstitutional.

Plaintiff argues that the executive orders fail to properly identify or define the specific speech and expressive conduct that is prohibited, and chill Plaintiff from engaging in constitutionally protected speech, in violation of the First Amendment. Plaintiff also argues that the executive orders involve viewpoint discrimination, and that they unconstitutionally condition federal funds on an agreement not to engage in protected speech.

Plaintiff also alleges that the executive orders are unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Finally, Plaintiff alleges that the executive orders exceed the president's statutory authority and usurp Congress's spending powers.

On March 28, 2025, the court issued a nationwide temporary restraining order blocking implementation of the certification provision requiring grant recipients and contractors to certify they do not operate unlawful DEI programs. The court held that the provision likely violates the First Amendment. The reference to "programs promoting DEI" in the provision targets constitutionally protected speech and advocacy, and the provision is also vague, putting grantees and contractors in a "difficult and perhaps impossible position" of trying to ensure compliance with a rule that leaves key terms undefined.

The court also blocked a separate provision, the termination provision, requiring each agency to terminate "equity-related grants," also on First Amendment grounds, but limited the injunction only to the plaintiff, Chicago Women in Trades.

On April 14, 2025, the court ruled on Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction, which would determine whether certain parts of the executive orders should remain blocked while the case moves forward. The court agreed to continue the nationwide block on the certification requirement, finding that it likely violates the First Amendment.

However, the court reversed course on a separate provision requiring agencies to terminate certain “equity-related” grants. It found that Plaintiff was unlikely to succeed in showing that this provision violated their constitutional rights, noting that the government has broad authority when making funding decisions aligned with policy goals.

Still, the court temporarily blocked enforcement of the termination provision as it relates to a subset of Plaintiff’s federal grants under the Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations (WANTO) Act. It found that ending these grants would violate the separation of powers, since Congress had clearly intended for this funding to support efforts to reduce gender disparities in nontraditional fields.