Tag: Order

  • Trump Signs Executive Order on Enforcement of Immigration Laws, Potentially Leading to Increased Worksite Enforcement Action

    Trump Signs Executive Order on Enforcement of Immigration Laws, Potentially Leading to Increased Worksite Enforcement Action

    by CUPA-HR | January 29, 2025

    Along with several immigration-related executive orders and actions issued on Inauguration Day, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion.” The EO sets several directives for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to enforce immigration law against immigrants without permanent legal status in the U.S. and could implicate employers the government deems as “facilitating” the presence of such individuals.

    Sections 4 and 5 of the EO establish civil and criminal enforcement priorities for relevant federal agencies. Specifically, the EO directs the secretary of Homeland Security to enable ICE and USCIS to set priorities for their agencies that would ensure successful enforcement of final orders of removal. Additionally, Section 8 of the EO directs increased enforcement action in the form of civil fines and penalties. The EO directs the secretary of Homeland Security to ensure assessment and collection of all fines and penalties from individuals unlawfully present in the U.S. and, notably, those who facilitate such individuals’ presence in the U.S.

    Depending on how the agencies respond to this order, these three sections of the EO could lead to an uptick in worksite enforcement action. As a result of this EO, agencies could take increased enforcement action for employment-related immigration law, which could lead to agency actions such as Form I-9 audits and potential investigations and worksite visits related to immigration compliance. Employers who are not in compliance with federal immigration laws could be considered as entities that potentially “facilitate” the presence of immigrants without permanent legal status, which could lead to significant fines and other penalties for the employers.

    Next Steps for HR Leaders

    CUPA-HR has always worked to help you ensure that your institution’s Form I-9 processes are in compliance with federal requirements, and we’ve partnered with USCIS for many years to provide periodic guidance, support and resources. We also understand that it is sometimes a challenge to ensure total compliance for large, sprawling campuses and that some of you have employees at worksites across your state, the country and the globe. Through speeches and actions like this executive order, the Trump administration has made it clear that they intend to focus enforcement efforts on immigrants without permanent legal status and businesses employing them. As noted above, it is possible that there could be I-9 audits and site visits to ensure compliance. Penalties for noncompliance could include very large fines and loss of federal funding.

    In light of this EO, it is vital for institutions to review their compliance with immigration laws regarding employment eligibility and work authorization. There are several questions HR leaders should ask themselves when reviewing compliance:

    • If you were notified tomorrow that your institution’s Form I-9 records were going to be audited in the coming weeks, where would your institution be most vulnerable?
    • What actions do you need to take today to address any potential vulnerabilities?
    • Do your presidents, provosts and other campus leaders understand and appreciate the magnitude of this potential challenge?
    • What changes do you need to make to your institution’s hiring and onboarding practices now to ensure compliance moving forward?

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for any additional updates related to the Form I-9 and other hiring processes related to work authorization. If you need additional guidance or resources, please review the CUPA-HR I-9/E-Verify Toolkit.



    Source link

  • Trump’s sex and gender order could create risk for colleges

    Trump’s sex and gender order could create risk for colleges

    While running for president, Donald Trump pledged to fight the Biden administration’s efforts to expand protections for transgender students. On day one of his second term in office, he got to work fulfilling that promise.

    In an executive order, which is part of a broader effort to restrict the rights of transgender people, Trump declared that there are only two sexes and banned the federal funding of “gender ideology.” His supporters hailed the move as a return to common sense, while LGBTQ+ advocates saw it as an attack seeking to erase the existence of trans people.

    For colleges and universities, the order raises more questions than it answers, and its immediate implications are unclear. As with other executive orders, it includes many provisions that require the Education Department to take action and issue guidance about how colleges should comply. But depending on how the department responds, the order could complicate institutions’ efforts to accommodate transgender students and eventually change how the federal government enforces Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

    Susan​​​​ Friedfel, a higher education attorney at Jackson Lewis, a New York City law firm that works with colleges and other employers, said more information is needed from the Education Department to determine how the order will affect higher ed institutions, especially since other federal and state laws protect LGBTQ+ students.

    “We have a lot of questions,” she said. “It’s challenging because we have conflicting laws that apply to the same space.”

    In the meantime, she encouraged colleges to revisit their Title IX policies to ensure they are in compliance with the 2020 regulations put in place by the first Trump administration and to think about how best to accommodate everybody.

    The order, titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” defines “sex,” “male” and “female,” among other terms, and orders federal agencies to use those definitions when “interpreting or applying statutes, regulations, or guidance and in all other official agency business, documents, and communications.”

    The order is likely to face legal challenges, said Cathryn Oakley, senior director of legal policy at the Human Rights Campaign, who argues that it’s unlawful.

    “It is important that people not give this executive order more credence than it deserves,” she said.

    Other LGBTQ+ advocates echoed Oakley, emphasizing that executive orders don’t create or change laws.

    “Discrimination based on sex, including discrimination against transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people, remains illegal, and it cannot be legalized through this executive order,” Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center, said in a statement.

    But Republican lawmakers, conservative legal organizations and other anti-trans advocates applauded Trump’s order, saying it would protect women and girls from discrimination and ground federal law in “biological fact.”

    “Blatant and deliberate attempts to redefine our sons’ and daughters’ identities by questioning biology itself has done significant harm to our children and society,” said Representative Tim Walberg, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House education committee. “[The] action by the Trump administration acknowledges the biological differences between men and women. In doing so, it is protecting women from discrimination and securing the progress women have made over the decades.”

    What’s in the Order

    In addition to defining “sex” and other terms, the order outlines a plan to combat “gender ideology,” which the Trump administration defines as replacing “the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa.”

    Federal officials were told to remove any internal or external documents that “inculcate gender ideology” and take “any necessary steps to end the federal funding of gender ideology.” Additionally, agencies will now only use the term “sex” instead of “gender” in all applicable federal policies and documents, according to the order. The Biden administration gave people the option on passport applications to mark their gender as X rather than choose male or female. That option is now being eliminated.

    On Thursday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the State Department wouldn’t process any passport applications seeking to change the applicant’s gender from male to female or requesting the X option, The Guardian reported.

    Agencies are required to give an update on their efforts to implement the order in 120 days.

    The Trump administration also directed the attorney general to correct the Biden administration’s “misapplication” of the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which said that LGBTQ+ individuals were protected from discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    The first Trump administration said that Bostock didn’t apply to Title IX, which bars sex-based discrimination in education settings. But the Biden administration reversed that guidance in June 2021.

    The Bostock decision was key to the Biden administration’s new Title IX regulations, which clarified that the law also prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. A federal judge ruled earlier this month that the new Title IX rule was unlawful and wiped the regulations off the books.

    Trump’s executive order also requires the education secretary to rescind a number of guidance documents related to the now-vacated Title IX regulations, as well as resources for supporting LGBTQ+ students. That includes the Education Department’s June 2021 Dear Colleague letter that said Title IX protects LGBTQ+ students from discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

    In addition, the Trump administration is rescinding a back-to-school message for transgender students from the Departments of Education, Justice and Health and Human Services that provided resources for students who experience bullying or discrimination.

    ‘Nothing Radical’

    Kim Hermann, the executive director of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, a conservative legal organization that sued the Biden administration over the Title IX regulations, said Trump’s order immediately restores the privacy and physical safety rights of women, so colleges that don’t comply could face federal civil rights investigations or lawsuits.

    “There’s nothing radical about this executive order,” she said. “All it does is solidify Congress’s original intent when they passed the laws … Our girls and our women on college campuses are sick of their rights being eroded.”

    Friedfel said the current Trump administration will likely investigate complaints from cisgender students who are uncomfortable sharing spaces with transgender students.

    “That doesn’t mean that they necessarily have to do anything radically different, but recognize that there’s that risk there,” she said.

    Oakley said that guidance from the department is necessary for universities to understand what’s expected of them and how the Office for Civil Rights will enforce Title IX. She doesn’t expect OCR to take discrimination against LGBTQ+ faculty, staff and students seriously.

    “It’s also going to be very difficult to understand how to be in compliance when the folks who are enforcing the law are not respecting the actual case law,” she said. “So it is going to create a tremendous amount of confusion.”

    Source link

  • Trump signs executive order targeting DEI policies at colleges

    Trump signs executive order targeting DEI policies at colleges

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • President Donald Trump signed an executive order Tuesday targeting diversity, equity and inclusion programs at colleges and other “influential institutions of American society,” escalating the Republican-led crusade against DEI. 
    • The executive order declares that DEI policies and programs adopted by colleges and others can violate federal civil rights laws and directs federal agencies to “combat illegal private sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, and activities.”
    • Trump’s order also directs each federal agency to identify up to nine corporations or associations, large foundations, or colleges with endowments over $1 billion as potential targets for “civil compliance investigations.”

    Dive Insight: 

    Republicans have railed against diversity and inclusion programming on college campuses for years, with state lawmakers enacting 14 pieces of legislation that restrict or bar DEI since 2023, according to a tally from The Chronicle of Higher Education. 

    Federal lawmakers have likewise targeted DEI programs at colleges in hearings and proposed bills. With Trump’s flurry of recent executive orders, however, the newly sworn-in president has made clear that his administration will ramp up the fight against DEI at the federal level. 

    “Institutions of higher education have adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion,’” the order states. 

    Jeremy Young, director of state and higher education policy at PEN America, a free expression organization, voiced concerns about the executive order. 

    “It launches a series of investigations into universities for merely having a DEI office or promoting DEI, diversity work on their campus,” Young said. “That, to us, is a pretty straightforward violation of the intellectual freedom of a university to promote ideas of all kinds on its campus.”

    At minimum, government investigations could amount to a nuisance, but at maximum, they could lead to lawsuits and actions against colleges, Young added. 

    Young also said the order is designed to sow division in the higher education sector by targeting colleges with endowments worth $1 billion or more. 

    “My hope is that higher education institutions will see this attack on a subset of their members as an attack on everyone,” Young said. 

    Trump’s new order also lacks a clear definition of what it deems as DEI programs or policies, Young said, raising concerns about unconstitutionally vague language. 

    State bills banning DEI similarly don’t have clear definitions, Young said. 

    “They become effectively a license to censor,” Young said. “Any government agency looking at them can claim that something is DEI because there is no actual definition in the order.”

    Trump’s order directs the nation’s attorney general, in consultation with federal agencies, to propose potential litigation against the private sector to enforce civil rights laws. It also orders agencies to identify “potential regulatory action and sub-regulatory guidance.”

    Trump also directed the U.S. education secretary to work with the nation’s attorney general to issue guidance to federally funded colleges within the next 120 days regarding how they can comply with the landmark 2023 Supreme Court decision that struck down race-conscious admissions. Trump’s nominee for education secretary, former World Wrestling Entertainment president and CEO Linda McMahon, is awaiting Senate confirmation hearings for the post.

    Tuesday’s executive order comes after he signed several other directives on the first day of his presidency meant to dismantle DEI efforts within the federal workforce. 

    Tim Walberg, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Committee on Education and Workforce, lauded the executive actions against DEI. 

    “DEI has bloated education budgets while telling students what to think instead of how to think,” Walberg said in a Wednesday statement. “I commend the Trump administration for dismantling DEI.” 

    Tuesday’s executive order clarifies that instructors at colleges that get federal aid are not prohibited from “advocating for, endorsing, or promoting the unlawful employment or contracting practices prohibited by this order” in their academic courses. 

    But Young said he hasn’t seen any legislation or executive order claiming to restrict DEI that doesn’t also restrict faculty instruction or roles in some way. “We have come to the conclusion that it may be impossible to do that,” Young said. 

    Trump’s order also says it does not prevent colleges from engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment. 

    Young, however, said language like this amounts to a meaningless statement, as the First Amendment supersedes an executive order.  

    “The problem is that the language plainly does violate the First Amendment, and therefore it’s going to be years before the courts adjudicate it and, meanwhile, people have to live under these executive orders,” Young said.

    Source link

  • Trump’s stated promise: ‘Stop all government censorship’ and his free speech Executive Order — First Amendment News 454

    Trump’s stated promise: ‘Stop all government censorship’ and his free speech Executive Order — First Amendment News 454

    Unprecedented.

    Let’s begin with President Donald Trump’s second inaugural address (Jan. 20), if only to contrast it with last week’s condemnation of his lawsuit against J. Ann Selzer, the Des Moines Register, and its parent company Gannett (see also FAN 451449 and 436). 

    Ready? Here it goes: 

    After years and years of illegal and unconstitutional federal efforts to restrict free expression, I will also sign an executive order to immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America.

    Never again will the immense power of the state be weaponized to persecute political opponents, something I know something about. We will not allow that to happen. It will not happen again. Under my leadership, we will restore fair, equal, and impartial justice under the constitutional rule of law.

    Never againIt will not happen againStop all government censorship

    And there’s more: When it comes to free speech, all views will be treated with “impartial justice.” Against that promissory note, let us turn to his unprecedented executive order as discussed below.

    Executive Order: Jan. 20, 2025

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    What follows is a brief description of the Executive Order along with some preliminary comments.

    Section 1. Purpose

    This section opens with an attack on the Biden administration’s alleged “trampl[ing of] free speech rights” when it comes to “online platforms.” Such abridgments, it is asserted, were done in the name of combating “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “malinformation” in order to advance the Biden administration’s “preferred narrative.” 

    Note at the outset that this section is primarily addressed to reversing the Biden administration’s apparent censorship of online expression. Even so, there is a generalized statement: “Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.”

    Keep that in mind when it comes to what is set out in Section 4 below.

    Section 2. Policy

    This section focuses on four commitments: (i) securing free speech rights of all “American[s]”; (ii) mandating that “no [federal] agent engages in or facilitates” abridgments of free speech; (iii) ensuring that no “taxpayer resources” are used to abridge free speech; and (iv) identify and correct any past federal abridgments of free speech.

    Unlike Section 1, the explicit focus of this section is not confined to any free speech abridgments committed by the previous administration. The focus is on securing free speech rights of “citizens.” Hence, the policy is directed to an affirmative obligation of the Executive branch to protect free speech rights. The operative action words are “secur[ing],” “ensur[ing],” and “identify[ing].”

    Thus, there is a duty to ensure that no federal officers are used or taxpayer dollars expended in violation of the Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Also, unlike Section 1, much of Section 2 applies to all free speech rights and not those confined to social media. There is also a promise to investigate for any and all existing abridgments of free speech committed by “past misconduct by the Federal Government.”

    Section 3. Ending Censorship of Protected Speech

    Like Section 1, this section focuses on the actions of the past administration (i.e., abridgments committed “over the past four years”). This section, unlike section 2, explicitly applies to federal departments and agencies, though it also applies to federal officers, agents and employees. Such agencies and departments must comply with the requirements of Section 2.

    The second portion of this section deals with the investigative powers of the attorney general working “in consultation with the heads of executive departments and agencies.” Again, this investigation is confined to wrongs committed by the past administration. Following such investigations, a “report” shall be submitted to the President suggesting “remedial actions.”

    Much of this section seems repetitive of what is set out in Section 2, save for the references to federal departments and agencies and the need for investigation followed by a report to the President. Note that under Section 3, remedial action is suggested, whereas under Section 4, per this Executive Order, remedial action against the United States and its officers is prohibited.

    Section 4. General Provisions

    In order to appreciate the import of this clause, it is best to quote the final provision (sub-section (c) it in its entirety (with emphasis added):

    This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    The opening provisions of this Section refer to authorizations of grants of executive power. The Order is to be implemented consistent with the “applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.”

    Importantly, While the First Amendment is a prohibition against the federal government and all its officers, this Executive Order:

    1. applies to free speech wrongs committed during “the last 4 years” or “past misconduct by the Federal Government” or abridgments occurring “over the last 4 years,” though there is a passing mention of securing the free speech rights of all “American[s].” 
    2. Yet even as against such past alleged free speech wrongs, the sole remedy is by way of corrective action taken by the Executive Branch. 
    3. If such corrective action, or any other actions taken by Executive officials in pursuance of this Executive Order, themselves abridge First Amendment rights, there is no independent remedy secured by the Order.

    Related

    FIRE weighs in with its own free speech recommendations to the President

    Below are the four general categories of recommendations made (see link above for specifics):

    1. Support the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act
    2. Address the abuse of campus anti-harassment policies
    3. Rein in government jawboning
    4. Protect First Amendment rights when it comes to AI

    “As president, Trump inherits the privilege and the obligation to defend the First Amendment rights of all Americans, regardless of their viewpoint — and FIRE stands ready to help in that effort.”

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in free expression mode at the Inauguration?

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at Trump Inauguration in 2024 wearing a distinctive collar adorned with cowrie shells, which are believed to offer protection from evil.

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at the inauguration of Donald Trump on Jan. 20, 2024. (Imagn Images)

    According to Christopher Webb, such “a distinctive collar adorned with cowrie shells . . . are believed to offer protection from evil in African traditions.” (See also, Josh Blackman, “Justice Jackson Did Not Wear a Dissent Collar To The Inauguration. She Apparently Wore a Talisman To Ward Off Evil,” The Volokh Conspiracy (Jan. 21))

    Excerpts from Virginia Court of Appeals decision in Patel v. CNN, Inc.

    Kash Patel at the 2023 Conservative Political Action Conference

    Kash Patel, seen here at the 2023 Conservative Political Action Conference, is President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the FBI. (Consolidated News Photos / Shutterstock.com)

    An excerpt from today’s Virginia Court of Appeals decision in Patel v. CNN, Inc., decided by Judge Rosemarie Annunziata, joined by Judge Vernida Chaney (the opinions weigh in at over 12,000 words, so I only excerpt some key passages).

    Abortion picketing case lingers on docket

    The cert. petition in the abortion picketing case, with Paul Clement as lead counsel, has been on the Court’s docket since July 16 of last year. It has been distributed for conferences seven times, the last being Jan. 21. In his petition, Mr. Clement (joined by Erin Murphy) explicitly called on the Court to “overrule Hill v. Colorado.” (See FAN 433, July 31, 2024))

    Paul Clements and Erin Murphy

    Paul Clements and Erin Murphy

    More in the News

    2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases

    Cases decided 

    • Villarreal v. Alaniz (Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
    • Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
    • TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)

    Review granted

    Pending petitions

    Petitions denied

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 453: “‘The lawsuit is the punishment’: Reflections on Trump v. Selzer

    This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.

    Source link

  • Trump Issues Executive Order to Restrict Gender Ideology in the Federal Government

    Trump Issues Executive Order to Restrict Gender Ideology in the Federal Government

    by CUPA-HR | January 22, 2025

    On January 20, the Trump administration issued an executive order (EO) titled, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” The EO was one of several executive orders and actions published by the Trump administration on its first day in office.

    The EO states that the United States government will recognize only two sexes — male and female — and defines sex as “an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female.” The definition continues to say that sex is “not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity.’” The executive order also defines “woman” and “girl” and “man” and “boy” to be adult and juvenile human females and males, respectively.

    The EO orders the secretary of health and human services to provide guidance expanding on the definitions established in the EO. It also directs all federal agencies to use the definitions set forth in the order “when interpreting or applying statutes, regulations, or guidance and in all other official agency business, documents, and communications.” All federal agencies will also be directed to use the term “sex” and not “gender” when administering or enforcing sex-based distinctions in applicable federal policies and documents.

    It also appears that the Trump administration hopes to codify these definitions into law through Congressional action. Specifically, the EO directs the assistant to the president for legislative affairs to provide the president proposed bill text to codify the definitions set in the order within 30 days.

    The EO also discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The EO states that the Biden administration argued that the Bostock decision “requires gender identity-based access to single-sex spaces under, for example, Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act,” which the Trump administration states is “legally untenable.” As such, the EO directs the U.S. attorney general to issue guidance to federal agencies to “correct the misapplication” of Bostock to “sex-based distinctions in agency activities.” The EO also directs the attorney general to issue guidance and assist federal agencies in protecting sex-based distinctions.

    The EO directs all federal agencies to submit an update to the Trump administration on implementation of this order within 120 days. The update is required to include information on changes to agency documents and agency-imposed requirements on federally funded entities, including federal contractors, that were implemented to comply with the order. The head of each federal agency is also directed to rescind all guidance documents inconsistent with the requirements of the order, and the EO includes a partial list of documents that the administration deems as inconsistent, including several Department of Education guidance documents on Title IX and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace.

    Finally, the EO directs agencies to take “all necessary steps, as permitted by law, to end the federal funding of gender ideology” and to “assess grant conditions and grantee preferences” to “ensure grant funds do not promote gender ideology.”

    Federal agencies will soon begin to take action and announce guidance to comply with the EO requirements. Institutions should therefore be aware of forthcoming guidance from the Department of Education on Title IX as a result of this EO. There could also be future ramifications for institutions that receive federal funds, including grants and contracts. CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for agency actions as well as any additional updates from the Trump administration as it relates to sex and gender-related policy.



    Source link

  • Trump Signs Executive Order Ending DEI Programs Including Affirmative Action

    Trump Signs Executive Order Ending DEI Programs Including Affirmative Action

    by CUPA-HR | January 22, 2025

    On January 22, President Trump signed an executive order (EO) titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” The EO directs all federal agencies to “terminate all discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement actions, consent orders, and requirements,” to enforce “longstanding civil rights laws,” and to “combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.” The White House also published a fact sheet to supplement the order.

    The EO lists several other executive orders that the Trump administration is revoking. Notably, the Trump EO revokes executive order 11246, titled “Equal Employment Opportunity,” which has required federal contractors to have affirmative action plans since 1965. Additionally, the EO orders the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) at the Department of Labor (DOL) to immediately cease “promoting diversity,” “holding federal contractors and subcontractors responsible for taking ‘affirmative action,’” and “allowing or encouraging federal contractors or subcontractors to engage in workforce balancing based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin.” Both of these actions are explained by the EO to streamline the federal contracting process “to enhance speed and efficiency, reduce costs, and require federal contractors and subcontractors to comply with our civil rights laws.”

    The EO also directs each federal agency to include in every federal contract or grant award a term requiring a contractual counterparty or grant recipient to agree that it is in compliance with all applicable federal anti-discrimination laws and a term requiring the counterparty or recipient to certify that it does not operate “any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable federal antidiscrimination laws.”

    The EO also includes orders to encourage the private sector to cease DEI programs and initiatives. Specifically, the EO directs the attorney general, in consultation with other relevant agencies, to promulgate a report with recommendations to enforce civil rights laws and encourage the private sector to end DEI practices. The report is required to identify “the most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners in each sector of concern.” It also requires each agency to identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations as a way to deter DEI programs or principles. The EO lists institutions of higher education with endowments over $1 billion as potential targets for the civil compliance investigations.

    Finally, the EO directs the attorney general and secretary of education to issue guidance to state and local educational agencies and institutions of higher education that receive federal dollars or participate in the Title IV federal student loan assistance program regarding “the measures and practices required to comply with Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.”

    The EO will have widespread implications for federal contractors in the higher education community. CUPA-HR will share further developments on this EO as they are released.



    Source link

  • Trump Signs Executive Order Ending DEI Programs Including Affirmative Action

    Trump Signs Executive Order Ending DEI Programs Including Affirmative Action

    by CUPA-HR | January 22, 2025

    On January 22, President Trump signed an executive order (EO) titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” The EO directs all federal agencies to “terminate all discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement actions, consent orders, and requirements,” to enforce “longstanding civil rights laws,” and to “combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.” The White House also published a fact sheet to supplement the order.

    The EO lists several other executive orders that the Trump administration is revoking. Notably, the Trump EO revokes executive order 11246, titled “Equal Employment Opportunity,” which has required federal contractors to have affirmative action plans since 1965. Additionally, the EO orders the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) at the Department of Labor (DOL) to immediately cease “promoting diversity,” “holding federal contractors and subcontractors responsible for taking ‘affirmative action,’” and “allowing or encouraging federal contractors or subcontractors to engage in workforce balancing based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin.” Both of these actions are explained by the EO to streamline the federal contracting process “to enhance speed and efficiency, reduce costs, and require federal contractors and subcontractors to comply with our civil rights laws.”

    The EO also directs each federal agency to include in every federal contract or grant award a term requiring a contractual counterparty or grant recipient to agree that it is in compliance with all applicable federal anti-discrimination laws and a term requiring the counterparty or recipient to certify that it does not operate “any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable federal antidiscrimination laws.”

    The EO also includes orders to encourage the private sector to cease DEI programs and initiatives. Specifically, the EO directs the attorney general, in consultation with other relevant agencies, to promulgate a report with recommendations to enforce civil rights laws and encourage the private sector to end DEI practices. The report is required to identify “the most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners in each sector of concern.” It also requires each agency to identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations as a way to deter DEI programs or principles. The EO lists institutions of higher education with endowments over $1 billion as potential targets for the civil compliance investigations.

    Finally, the EO directs the attorney general and secretary of education to issue guidance to state and local educational agencies and institutions of higher education that receive federal dollars or participate in the Title IV federal student loan assistance program regarding “the measures and practices required to comply with Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.”

    The EO will have widespread implications for federal contractors in the higher education community. CUPA-HR will share further developments on this EO as they are released.



    Source link

  • Indiana governor issues executive order eliminating DEI

    Indiana governor issues executive order eliminating DEI

    Indiana governor Mike Braun signed an executive order Wednesday eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion in all state agencies and replacing it with what he’s calling “MEI”—merit, excellence and innovation.

    The order requires all executive branch state agencies to uphold the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard, which prohibited the consideration of race in college admissions, noting that “eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it” and that equal protection applies “without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality.”

    Under the order, government offices cannot use state funds, property or resources to support DEI initiatives, require job candidates to issue DEI statements or “mandate any person to disclose their pronouns.” State agencies must review their individual programs and policies for compliance by April 30 and provide a written report to the governor by July 1.

    The order also closes the government’s Office of the Chief Equity, Opportunity and Inclusion Officer, which was created in 2020 under Braun’s predecessor, Governor Eric Holcomb.

    This makes Indiana the second state this year to eliminate DEI by executive order, following West Virginia.

    Among the other executive orders Braun signed during his first week as governor was one requiring the state personnel office to review all job postings and eliminate degree requirements for positions where they’re not necessary.

    Source link

  • West Virginia Executive Order on ‘DEI’ unconstitutionally limits university classroom discussions.

    West Virginia Executive Order on ‘DEI’ unconstitutionally limits university classroom discussions.

    West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey issued an executive order yesterday to eliminate certain diversity, equity, and inclusion practices in state agencies and organizations that receive state money. While the state may limit certain programs or activities of state agencies, the executive order is written so broadly that it applies to classroom instruction in higher education. As such, the executive order violates the First Amendment and must be rescinded or amended to make clear that it does not affect what’s discussed in college classrooms. If the order is not rescinded or amended, West Virginia’s public institutions must protect faculty academic freedom rights and make sure that classroom teaching is not affected. 

    If you are a faculty member whose teaching may be impacted by Executive Order 3-25, FIRE is here for you.

    Provision 1.b. sweeps in an enormous amount of expression protected under the First Amendment protected expression at West Virginia’s universities and colleges. It provides: 

    [No] entity receiving state funds, shall utilize state funds, property, or resources to . . . Mandate any person to participate in, listen to, or receive any education, training, activities, procedures, or programming to the extent such education, training, activity, or procedure promotes or encourages the granting of preferences based on one person’s particular race, color, sex, ethnicity, or national origin over that of another.

    This language violates the First Amendment, reaching college classroom instruction and discussion. It is viewpoint-discriminatory, prohibiting faculty from sharing any material that “promotes or encourages” a view while allowing them to criticize that viewpoint. And while other states’ anti-DEI efforts have included language that might protect discussions in university and college classrooms, West Virginia’s does not — instead, it applies to any agency receiving state funds. West Virginia’s public universities cannot both comply with the executive order and their obligations under the first Amendment. 

    Governor Morrisey should rescind or amend the Executive Order to make clear that it does not affect higher education classroom instruction. 

    Whatever authority states might have to regulate other state agencies (including K-12 education and non academic higher education programming), the university classroom context is different. The First Amendment protects the right of faculty members at public universities and colleges to discuss pedagogically-relevant material in their courses, even if that material is offensive to students, colleagues, the public, or lawmakers. As the Supreme Court held in Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York (1967), state officials cannot use the law to impose an “orthodoxy over the [college] classroom,” where students learn “through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas,” not “authoritative selection,” wrote Justice William Brennan.

    FIRE has defended this important right across the ideological spectrum in courts across the country, successfully suing over Florida’s “Stop WOKE Act” and maintaining an ongoing challenge against California’s requirement that faculty incorporate ‘anti-racist’ viewpoints into their classroom teaching.

    Executive Order 3-25 violates those First Amendment rights. Under Executive Order 3-25:

    • A law professor teaching constitutional law cannot present Supreme Court opinions arguing in favor of race-conscious admissions at universities and colleges, including the dissenting opinions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College or the plurality or majority opinions in Bakke and Grutter.
    • A college professor cannot recount other arguments in favor of affirmative action or racial preferences, which remain legal in many other circumstances outside of the university context.
    • A professor discussing reparations — including proposals recently introduced in the United States Senate — can only criticize reparations, but could not present arguments in favor, even if they want to dissect those arguments.
    • A history professor would have to think twice before presenting materials relating to historic immigration policies that limited immigrants by national origin, as that might “promote” preferences based on national origin.
    • A political science professor cannot present materials arguing in favor of continuing to limit Selective Service (i.e., the military draft) registration requirements to men, or limiting combat roles to men, as those arguments would “promote” preferences based on sex.

    Diversity, equity, and inclusion statements FAQ

    Issue Pages

    Vague or ideologically motivated DEI statement policies can too easily function as litmus tests for adherence to prevailing ideological views on DEI.


    Read More

    Worse still, it is impossible for an educator to know what might “promote or encourage the granting of preferences” with regard to a particular student. For instance, since students reading the Supreme Court decisions in Bakke and Grutter may find their arguments convincing, even teaching about these landmark cases would risk violating the executive order. This cannot be reconciled with the First Amendment and academic freedom rights of West Virginia students and professors.

    The plain language of the provision clearly conflicts with West Virginians’ constitutional rights. Governor Morrisey should rescind or amend the Executive Order to make clear that it does not affect higher education classroom instruction. If you are a faculty member whose teaching may be impacted by Executive Order 3-25, please contact FIRE: https://thefire.org/alarm.

    Source link