NEA-ACLU Lawsuit Challenges Trump’s Anti-DEI “Dear Colleague” Letter

Since 2021, attacks on educators and public education have been relentless. Anti-public education politicians have deliberately twisted inclusive education efforts, including diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts, and fuel a manufactured crisis designed to discredit inclusive education. In the past few months, these attacks have escalated. 

A new “Dear Colleague” letter from the Trump Administration’s Department of Education threatens to revoke federal funding for schools with inclusive programs and curricula. The effects of these threats are already being felt across the country. Civil rights advocates and educators are taking a stand against these politically motivated attacks. 

At the helm of this fight are the American Civil Liberties (ACLU), NEA, and NEA-New Hampshire. The groups filed a lawsuit, on March 5, against the U.S. Department of Education (ED), arguing that the administration’s actions violate constitutional rights and threaten real programs in public education, where 90 percent of all students, and 95 percent of students with disabilities, learn. 

“The Trump administration is threatening to punish students, parents and educators in public schools for … fostering inclusive classrooms where diversity is valued [and] history is taught honestly,” said NEA President Becky Pringle. “We’re urging the court to block the Department of Education from enforcing this harmful and vague directive and protect students from politically motivated attacks that stifle speech and erase critical lessons.”  

Unfounded and Vague 

The lawsuit asserts that the "Dear Colleague" letter imposes unfounded and vague legal restrictions that violate due process and the First Amendment; limits academic freedom; and impermissibly dictates what educators can teach and what students are allowed to learn. 

One NEA-New Hampshire member, a high school English teacher who often covers literature that explores topics about race and gender roles, fears being accused of discrimination under the letter’s vague language. Given that discussions on diversity, systemic racism, and moral burdens naturally come up in his classroom, he faces potential investigation, discipline, or adverse employment action for engaging in such discussions.  

Another NEA-New Hampshire member, an eighth-grade social studies teacher covering U.S. history from the Civil War to present, worries that discussions on race and discrimination—essential to teaching American history—could be misinterpreted as violations of the letter’s restrictions, exposing her to similar risks. 

‘Brazen Attempt to Intimidate Schools’

In response to the Trump Administration’s overreach and to protect educators nationwide, the lawsuit challenges the letter on three key legal grounds:  

1. Unconstitutionally Vague in Violation of the Fifth Amendment 

The letter fails to define key terms and practices, leaving educators uncertain about what is prohibited and vulnerable to arbitrary enforcement. By failing to establish clear standards, the letter creates a chilling effect, forcing teachers to avoid important discussions in history, English literature, and more, or to risk arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement that threatens their professions.  

2. Violation of the First Amendment 

The letter unconstitutionally restricts speech by prohibiting educators—particularly those in higher education—from teaching about race, diversity, equity, and inclusion. It also broadly bans DEI programs, including student groups and faculty associations, coercing educational institutions into self-censorship through the threat of losing federal funding.  

3. Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

The letter imposes new legal obligations without the required process and justification, making it arbitrary, capricious, and legally invalid. ED oversteps its authority and ignores decades of legal precedent and its own prior guidance on civil rights law, failing to explain why it is now reversing course on long-standing principles of equity and inclusion. 

“It’s clear that the Trump administration is trying to shut down speech it doesn’t like—especially when it deals with race in our educational institutions,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The Dear Colleague Letter is a brazen attempt to intimidate schools into abandoning lawful efforts to create inclusive learning environments. This is a blatant attack on free speech and academic freedom, aiming to deprive students of a full and honest education. We will not stand by as the Department of Education uses fear and coercion to force schools and educators into self-censorship by threatening to strip federal funding.” 

Winning Against Classroom Censorship

The fight against Trump’s anti-DEI actions is not just theoretical—recent legal victories prove that these policies can be defeated.  

In 2024, educators in New Hampshire won a landmark lawsuit against the state’s “banned concepts” law, which prohibited teachers from discussing race, gender, sexuality, and disabilities in the classroom. The law was declared unconstitutionally vague, violating teachers’ rights, and preventing students from receiving a comprehensive education.

“Like New Hampshire’s classroom censorship law that we successfully challenged in court, this unconstitutionally vague letter is an attack on educators who are simply doing their job,” said Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the ACLU-New Hampshire. “Teachers are already reporting being afraid to teach for fear of having their teaching deemed unlawful, and that deprives Granite State students of the complete education that they deserve.”    

Similarly, educators across the country have successfully challenged state censorship laws that sought to restrict how educators teach about diversity and systemic inequities. These cases serve as a precedent for the current legal battles the “Dear Colleague” letter. They demonstrate that attempts to suppress inclusive education are not only unconstitutional but also a direct disservice to students.

Courts Will Have the Final Say 

While the Trump Administration’s Dear Colleague letter represents a significant attack on civil rights protections, it is far from the final word. Legal experts argue that the order does not have the force of law and that federal agencies lack the authority to enforce vague bans on DEI or to restrict school curriculum and instruction, particularly without congressional approval. 

Early rulings by some courts have issued preliminary decisions blocking or suspending parts of Trump’s executive orders related to DEI. 

“Let’s not let politicians distract us from the real issues facing public schools,”said Pringle. “We know what’s at stake. That’s why we are coming together—parents, students, and educators—to make sure every child, regardless of race, ZIP code, or family income, has the opportunities and resources they need.”