Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 37-1 Filed 04/09/25 Page 1 of 46
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
`NORTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`American Federation of Teachers, et al.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`U.S. Department of Education, et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Case No. 1:25-cv-00628
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN
`EXPEDITED PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION & APA § 705 STAY OF CERTIFICATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 37-1 Filed 04/09/25 Page 2 of 46
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
`BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................3
`
`The Certification Announcement and Letters ......................................................................3
`
`The Certification Form ........................................................................................................4
`
`The Consequences ...............................................................................................................5
`
`Prior Certifications ...............................................................................................................6
`
`Irreparable Harm ..................................................................................................................6
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................................9
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................9
`
`I.
`Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits. .....................................................10
`
`A.
`The Certification Is Unconstitutionally Vague in Violation of the Due
`
`
`Process Clause. ..........................................................................................10
`
`
`1.
`The Department of Education Has Not Given Regulated Entities
`
`
`
`Fair Warning ..................................................................................11
`
`
`2.
`The Certification is Ripe for Arbitrary Enforcement .....................16
`
`B.
`The Certification Violates the First Amendment. ......................................16
`
`C.
`The Certification Violates the Administrative Procedures Act. ................20
`
`
`1.
`The Certification is Final Agency Action. .....................................20
`
`
`2.
`The Certification is Not in Accordance with Law and is in Excess
`
`
`
`of Statutory Authority. ...................................................................21
`
`
`3
`The Certification is Arbitrary and Capricious. ..............................23
`a.
`The Department failed to provide an adequate explanation
`
`for its change in its positions. ............................................24
`b.
`The Department fails to rely on prior factual findings and
`
`available evidence. .............................................................28
`c.
`The Certification fails to account for existing
`
`federal and state legal standards. .......................................29
`d.
`The Department failed to consider two “important aspect[s]
`
`of the problem.” .................................................................30
`e.
`The Department failed to consider the reliance interests of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 37-1 Filed 04/09/25 Page 3 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`III.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`schools and educators. .......................................................32
`
`The Certification is Contrary to Constitutional Rights ......32
`f.
`The Certification was Issued Without Observance of
`g.
`Procedure Required by Law...............................................32
`
`Plaintiffs Are Suffering Irreparable Harm. ............................................................33
`
`The Balance of the Equities and the Public Interest Favor Enjoining
`
`the Certification. ....................................................................................................35
`
`A.
`Nationwide Injunction Is Necessary. .........................................................36
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................37
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 37-1 Filed 04/09/25 Page 4 of 46
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases Page(s)
`
`Agency for Int’l Dev. v. All. for Open Soc’y Int’l, 570 U.S. 205 (2013) .......................................17
`
`Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. McVey, 37 F.4th 89 (4th Cir. 2022) ...........................................................33
`
`Am. Acad. of Pediatrics v. Food & Drug Admin., 379 F. Supp. 3d 461 (D. Md. 2019) ................20
`
`Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., AFL-CIO v. Fed. Lab. Rels. Auth., 25 F.4th 1 (D.C. Cir. 2022) ........28
`
`Am. Fed'n of Tchrs. v. Bessent, No. CV DLB-25-0430, 2025 WL 582063 (D. Md. Feb.
`24, 2025).....................................................................................................................................36
`
`Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2009) ........................34
`
`Ass’n of Cmty. Cancer Ctrs. V. Azar, 509 F. Supp. 3d 482 (D. Md. 2020) ...................................36
`
`Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) ..........................................................................................20
`
`Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988) ...............................................................................................19
`
`Bos. Parent Coal. for Acad. Excellence Corp. v. Sch. Comm. for City of Bos., 89 F.4th 46
`(1st Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 15 (2024) ...............................................................12, 30
`
`Bos. Parent Coal. for Acad. Excellence Corp. v. Sch. Comm. for City of Bos., 996 F.3d 37
`(2021) ...................................................................................................................................12, 30
`
`Casa de Maryland, Inc. v. Wolf, 486 F. Supp. 3d 928 (D. Md. 2020) .............................................9
`
`Cent. Radio Co. v. City of Norfolk, Va., 811 F.3d 625 (4th Cir. 2016) ...................................19, 20
`
`Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump, No. 25 C 2005, 2025 WL 933871 (N.D. Ill. Mar.
`27, 2025).........................................................................................................................12, 13, 18
`
`City of Columbus v. Cochran, 523 F. Supp. 3d 731 (D. Md. 2021) ........................................24, 28
`
`Coal. for TJ v. Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 68 F.4th 864 (4th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 218 L.
`Ed. 2d 71 (Feb. 20, 2024) .....................................................................................................12, 30
`
`Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1 (2020) .................................32
`
`Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) .............................................................................................33
`
`Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211 (2016) .....................................................................24
`
`Friends of Back Bay v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 681 F.3d 581 (4th Cir. 2012) .......................29
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 37-1 Filed 04/09/25 Page 5 of 46
`
`Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988) ..........................................................................................19
`
`Giovani Carandola, Ltd. v. Bason, 303 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 2002) .................................................35
`
`Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) ............................................................10, 11, 12
`
`HIAS, Inc. v. Trump, 985 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2021) .......................................................................36
`
`Honeyfund.com v. Desantis, 622 F. Supp. 3d 1159 (N.D. Fla. 2022), aff’d 94 F.4th 1272
`(11th Cir. 2024) ..........................................................................................................................20
`
`In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litig., 333 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 2003) ..............................................9
`
`Labrador v. Poe by & through Poe, 144 S. Ct. 921 (Mem), 932 (2024) .......................................36
`
`Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Balt. Police Dep’t, 2 F.4th 330 (4th Cir. 2021) ................33, 35
`
`Legal Servs. Corp v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533 (2001) ...................................................................17
`
`Loc. 8027 v. Edelblut, No. 21-cv-1077-PB, 2024 WL 2722254 (D.N.H. May 28, 2024) .......12, 16
`
`Mayor of Balt. v. Azar, 973 F.3d 258 (4th Cir. 2020) ....................................................................28
`
`Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) ....23, 24, 28, 30
`
`Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 6.56 Acres of Land, Owned by Sandra Townes Powell,
`915 F.3d 197 (4th Cir. 2019) ......................................................................................................33
`
`Nat’l Council of Nonprofits v. Off. of Mgmt. and Budget, Civil Action No. 25-239 (LLA),
`2025 WL 597959 (D.D.C. Feb. 25, 2025)............................................................................17, 18
`
`Nat’l Mining Ass'n v. McCarthy, 758 F.3d 243 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ..................................................21
`
`Nat'l Pub. Radio, Inc. v. Klavans, 560 F. Supp. 3d 916 (D. Md. 2021) ........................................36
`
`Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Vullo, 49 F.4th 700 (2d Cir. 2022) .......................................................18
`
`Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175 (2024) .................................................................18
`
`Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) ..............................................................................................9
`
`Ohio v. Env’t Prot. Agency, 603 U.S. 279 (2024) .........................................................................28
`
`Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) ...................12, 30
`
`Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2013) ..............................................................................36
`
`Pernell v. Fla. Bd. of Governors of State Univ. Sys., 641 F. Supp. 3d 1218 (N.D. Fla.
`2022)...........................................................................................................................................13
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 37-1 Filed 04/09/25 Page 6 of 46
`
`PFLAG, Inc. v. Trump, No. CV 25-337-BAH, 2025 WL 510050 (D. Md. Feb. 14, 2025) .....35, 36
`
`Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Lew, 127 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2000) ..........................................................33
`
`Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., 576 U.S. 155 (2015) ...............................................................17, 20
`
`Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002) ............................................................19
`
`Ridpath v. Bd. of Govs. Marshall Univ., 447 F.3d 292 (4th Cir. 2006) .........................................16
`
`Roe v. Dep’t of Def., 947 F.3d 207 (4th Cir. 2020) .............................................................9, 29, 36
`
`Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14 (2020) ................................................33
`
`Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) ............................................................................................17
`
`Safe Extensions, Inc. v. F.A.A., 509 F.3d 593 (D.C. Cir. 2007).....................................................29
`
`Santa Cruz Lesbian & Gay Cmty. Ctr. v. Trump, 508 F. Supp. 3d 521 (N.D. Cal. 2020).......13, 18
`
`Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. 148 (2018) ......................................................................................11
`
`Sierra Club v. Env't Prot. Agency, 955 F.3d 56 (D.C. Cir. 2020) .................................................21
`
`Tenn. Educ. Ass'n v. Reynolds, 732 F. Supp. 3d 783 (M.D. Tenn. 2024) ......................................13
`
`Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969).............................................16
`
`U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs v. Hawkes Co., 578 U.S. 590 (2016) .................................................21
`
`United States v. Longhi, 575 F.3d 458 (5th Cir. 2009); .................................................................14
`
`United States v. Rogan, 517 F.3d 449 (7th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................14
`
`United States v. South Carolina, 720 F.3d 518 (4th Cir. 2013) .......................................................9
`
`United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008) ............................................................................10
`
`UnitedSteel v. Mine Safety and Health Admin., 925 F.3d 1279 (D.C. Cir. 2019) .........................24
`
`Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 579 U.S. 176 (2016) ...................15
`
`Vill. Of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (1982) .......................11
`
`West Virginia v. Thompson, 475 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2007) ............................................................23
`
`Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) .......................................................................9
`
`Statutes
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 37-1 Filed 04/09/25 Page 7 of 46
`
`31 U.S.C. § 3729 ............................................................................................................................14
`
`44 U.S.C. 3501 ....................................................................................................................6, 21, 22
`
`5 U.S.C. § 705 ..................................................................................................................................9
`
`5 U.S.C. § 706 ..............................................................................................................20, 21, 23, 32
`
`Other Authorities
`
`78 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 357 § 2 ...........................................................................................15
`
`Amy Pritchard Williams et al., The False Claims Act May Be the Next Weapon in the
`Trump Administration’s War on DEI, Troutman Pepper Locke LLP (Mar. 3, 2025),
`https://perma.cc/NC4L-JTJC .....................................................................................................15
`
`Andrew R. Turnbull, President Trump’s DEI Certification for Federal Contractors
`Creates Significant FCA Risk, Morrison Foerster: Gov’t Contracts Insights (Feb. 6,
`2025), https://perma.cc/X367-8RE7 ..........................................................................................16
`
`Dep’t of Educ. & Dep’t of Just., Questions and Answers Regarding the Supreme Court’s
`Decision In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard College and University Of
`North Carolina (Aug. 14, 2023),................................................................................................25
`
`Dep’t of Educ., Off. for C.R., Assurance of Compliance – Civil Rights Form, OMB
`Approval No. 1870-0503, https://perma.cc/9A9G-RHA6 .....................................................6, 22
`
`E-mail from Off. for C.R., Department of Education Title VI Compliance Certification
`(Apr. 3, 2025 ................................................................................................................................3
`
`Ja’han Jones, At Confirmation Hearing, Linda McMahon Refuses to Say Black History
`Courses Will Be Allowed, Yahoo News (Feb. 14, 2025), https://perma.cc/PM36-A84V ..........11
`
`Md. State Dep’t of Educ., Maryland Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Consolidated
`State Plan, at 13 (Jan. 10, 2018), https://perma.cc/HKX3-8YUJ ..............................................31
`
`Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, Supporting Statement for a Paperwork Reduction Act
`Submission., OMB No. 1870-0503 (revised June 11, 2024 .............................................6, 22, 23
`
`Or. Dep’t of Educ., Oregon’s Consolidated State Plan Under the Every Student Succeeds
`Act (Aug. 30, 2017), https://perma.cc/2TQV-BBMA ................................................................31
`
`Press Release, Dep’t of Educ., ED Requires K-12 School Districts to Certify Compliance
`with Title VI and Students v. Harvard as a Condition of Receiving Federal Financial
`Assistance (Apr. 3, 2025), https://perma.cc/7WBU-T8QN ...............................................3, 4, 29
`
`U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Off. for C.R., Race and School Programming 8 (Sept. 25, 2023 ..........26, 27
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 37-1 Filed 04/09/25 Page 8 of 46
`
`U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Off. of C.R., Fact Sheet: Diversity and Inclusion Activities Under
`Title VI (Jan. 2023), https://perma.cc/4G25-JKZJ .....................................................................27
`
`U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Off. of the Under Sec’y, Strategies for Increasing Diversity and
`Opportunity in Higher Education (Sept. 28, 2023), https://perma.cc/XTP4-SRAL ..................27
`
`U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Reminder of Legal Obligations Undertaken in Exchange for
`Receiving Federal Financial Assistance and Request for Certification under Title VI
`and SFFA v. Harvard (Apr. 3, 2025), https://perma.cc/AF2G-ZL69 ................................ passim
`
`Regulations
`
`34 C.F.R. § 100.5 .....................................................................................................................19, 30
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 37-1 Filed 04/09/25 Page 9 of 46
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This past Thursday, April 3, the Department of Education shocked the country’s school
`
`districts and state education departments with its most recent step to dramatically, and
`
`impermissibly, enforce the Department’s new interpretation of Title VI: notifying state education
`
`agencies (SEAs) that within 10 days they, and every school district (also “local education
`
`agencies” or “LEAs”) in their jurisdiction, must certify compliance with the Department’s
`
`interpretation of Title VI and Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard. Through this new
`
`Certification, the Department is chilling protected expression and association, imposing an
`
`unlawful vague and overbroad requirement, and threatening to enforce yet another impermissible
`
`condition on federal funding.
`
`The Department’s action is the latest development in a series of actions stemming back to
`
`the Dear Colleague Letter (Ex. 11, PLFS-114) that prompted this lawsuit. For nearly two months,
`
`the Department has consistently undermined well-established understandings of civil rights law
`
`and threatened to impose significant penalties on schools and educators that fail to conform to the
`
`Administration’s rendering of race-based discrimination. While the Department has some ability
`
`to change positions and enforcement priorities, it cannot change the law. The Department can, of
`
`course, take only constitutional actions, and its changes in position must be in accordance with
`
`laws passed by Congress and interpreted by the courts. And the Department must follow the proper
`
`procedure to make such changes. It has met none of these fundamental requirements. Rather, this
`
`latest action is a pretext to achieve two clearly stated Administration goals: upending public
`
`education in this country and eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion in society. As the
`
`Department’s actions are escalating, absent immediate Court involvement, Plaintiffs, and the
`
`students and educators they represent will suffer significant, ongoing, irreparable harm.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 37-1 Filed 04/09/25 Page 10 of 46
`
`In particular, for SEAs and LEAs, the Department has set up a “heads I win, tails you lose”
`
`scenario. School districts are required to make an impossible choice in a matter of days: they can
`
`either sign the Certification, despite not knowing the meaning of its key terms and having serious
`
`concerns about its legality, or they can decline to sign the Certification, which the Department has
`
`indicated is a material condition for the continued receipt of federal financial assistance. If they
`
`sign, they subject themselves to potential False Claims Act enforcement by the government and
`
`third parties, as well as breach of contract claims. If they do not sign, the Department may view
`
`that as noncompliance with its interpretation of Title VI and terminate federal funding. Whatever
`
`they decide, the result could be devastating for their schools and students. And educators face a
`
`similar impossible choice: should they chill their speech and potentially violate their state
`
`education and curricular standards to attempt to comply with the Certification in hopes of
`
`protecting their school? Or should they continue to teach based on longstanding Title VI and anti-
`
`discrimination case law and guidance, and risk investigation and a loss of federal education
`
`funding? For them, too, there is no good choice.
`
`At bottom, the Certification is coercive and has no legitimate legal basis. SEAs and school
`
`districts already provide assurances to the Department that they will comply with Title VI. The
`
`Department points to no authority on which it relies to request this additional certification from
`
`school districts, because there is none on which to rely. There is also nothing that permits the
`
`Department to take this action without going through the proper statutory process for publishing
`
`and distributing this kind of certification.
`
`To stop the harms being caused by this Certification across the country, Plaintiffs
`
`respectfully request that this Court enjoin the Defendants from enforcing this new certification
`
`requirement until this Court has an opportunity to fully consider the issues involved.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 37-1 Filed 04/09/25 Page 11 of 46
`
`The Certification Announcement and Letters
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On April 3, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education announced that it “sent letters to State
`
`Commissioners overseeing K-12 State Education Agencies (SEAs) requiring them to certify their
`
`compliance” with “Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the responsibilities outlined in Students for
`
`Fair Admissions v. Harvard.”1 The Department described the certification as required in order “to
`
`continue receiving federal financial assistance.”2
`
`The letters, sent via e-mail, state in their entirety:
`
`Within ten (10) days, please sign and return the attached certification along with the
`certifications of your Local Education Agencies (LEAs). Furthermore, within these
`ten (10) days, please report the signature status for each of your LEAs, any
`compliance issues found within your LEAs, and your proposed enforcement plans
`for those LEAs. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.3
`
`In the press release announcing this demand, Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
`
`Craig Trainor, speaking for the Department, states that “[F]ederal financial assistance is a
`
`privilege, not a right.”4 Secretary Trainor describes the certification as “an important step toward
`
`ensuring that states understand—and comply with—their existing obligations under civil rights
`
`laws and Students v. Harvard.”5 Without providing any evidence, or even examples, he asserts
`
`that “many schools flout or outright violate” their legal obligations; a way schools “violate” their
`
`Title VI legal obligations is “by using DEI programs to discriminate against one group of
`
`
`1Exhibit 41, Press Release, Dep’t of Educ., ED Requires K-12 School Districts to Certify Compliance with Title VI
`and Students v. Harvard as a Condition of Receiving Federal Financial Assistance (Apr. 3, 2025),
`https://perma.cc/7WBU-T8QN, PLFS-552.
`2 Id.
`3 Exhibit 42, E-mail from Off. for C.R., Department of Education Title VI Compliance Certification (Apr. 3, 2025),
`PLFS-557.
`4 Press Release, ED Requires K-12 School Districts to Certify Compliance with Title VI and Students v. Harvard as
`a Condition of Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, supra note 1, PLFS-553.
`5 Id.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 37-1 Filed 04/09/25 Page 12 of 46
`
`Americans to favor another based on identity characteristics.”6 There are no examples of what
`
`types or kinds of DEI practices purportedly do this given, nor are there any prior discrimination
`
`findings based on these practices cited against K-12 schools.
`
`According to the press release, the certification is purportedly sent pursuant to the
`
`Department’s authority to ensure recipients of federal funding comply with federal civil rights
`
`laws.7 No specific law or statute empowering the Department to send this certification is cited.
`
`In introducing this new certification, the Department did, however, explicitly reference its
`
`February 14, Dear Colleague Letter (“Letter”) as well as the Frequently Asked Questions
`
`published on February 28, 2025 (“FAQs”).8
`
`The Certification Form
`
`The Certification form is titled “Reminder of Legal Obligations Undertaken in Exchange
`
`for Receiving Federal Financial Assistance and Request for Certification under Title VI and SFFA
`
`v. Harvard” and is dated April 3, 2025.9 The form does not include an OMB control number.
`
`The form includes an initial certification as follows:
`
`On behalf of _____________________________________________[SEA/LEA], I
`acknowledge that I have received and reviewed this Reminder of Legal Obligations
`Undertaken in Exchange for Receiving Federal Financial Assistance and Request for
`Certification under Title VI and SFFA v. Harvard. I further acknowledge that
`compliance with the below and the assurances referred to, as well as this certification,
`constitute a material condition for the continued receipt of federal financial assistance,
`and therefore certify our compliance with the below legal obligations.10
`
`
`
`
`6 Id.
`7 Id.
`8 Id
`9 Exhibit 43, U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Reminder of Legal Obligations Undertaken in Exchange for Receiving Federal
`Financial Assistance and Request for Certification under Title VI and SFFA v. Harvard (Apr. 3, 2025),
`https://perma.cc/AF2G-ZL69.
`10 Id.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 37-1 Filed 04/09/25 Page 13 of 46
`
`Below the certification is a space to fill in signature, date, and “Title and District or
`
`State.”11
`
`Following the certification are the “assurances” referenced therein, which do not follow
`
`the mold of certifications that are typically required by the federal government. The assurances
`
`the Department has presented to every SEA and LEA in the country include editorial
`
`commentary criticizing unnamed “equity mandates” by the Biden Administration, selective
`
`quotes from SFFA, and a few broad assertions, unsupported by any authority, suggesting that
`
`DEI programs are illegal.
`
`
`
`In particular, the Department suggests SFFA’s holding is that “the Equal Protection
`
`Clause and Title VI prohibit race-based action, with only the narrowest of exceptions.”12
`
`However, the Department does not, and could not, point to anything in SFFA that defines “race-
`
`based action” in the context of K-12 schooling or indeed anything in the decision that suggests it
`
`applies to K-12 education at all. The Department also states that “any violation of Title VI—
`
`including the use of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (“DEI”) programs to advantage one’s [sic]
`
`race over another—is impermissible,” and that “[t]he use of certain DEI practices can violate
`
`federal law.”13 But there, too, the Department provides no additional information as to what
`
`constitutes “advantaging” one race over another or what “certain DEI practices” violate federal
`
`law. Finally, the assurances proclaim that “[t]he continued use of illegal DEI practices may
`
`subject the individual or entity using such practices to serious consequences,”14 again providing
`
`no information on what will be considered as “illegal DEI” in the context of these assurances.
`
`The Consequences
`
`
`
`11 Id.
`12 Id. at 2 (emphasis added).
`13 Id. at 3 (emphasis added).
`14 Id. (emphasis added).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 37-1 Filed 04/09/25 Page 14 of 46
`
`At the end of the assurances, the Department enumerates consequences for the “continued
`
`use of illegal DEI.”15 The assurances do not state whether these consequences apply to other
`
`purported violations of Title VI. Thus, by the terms of the Certification, the consequences only
`
`apply to “continued use of illegal DEI.”16 The listed consequences are: (1) termination of funds
`
`under Title VI; (2) prosecution for breach of contract and restitution; and, (3) liability and
`
`prosecution under the False Claims Act, including treble damages.
`
`Prior Certifications
`
`
`
`SEAs and LEAs are familiar with the process of submitting assurances to the Department.
`
`Prior certifications have been reviewed and approved by OMB, consistent with the requirements
`
`in the Paperwork Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501 et seq. The Department has previously
`
`represented to OMB that federal funding recipients need only complete one Assurance of
`
`Compliance per entity,17 and that “no persons are required to respond to a collection of information
`
`unless [it] displays a valid OMB control number.”18
`
`Irreparable Harm
`
`The Certification puts LEAs in an impossible bind: they are forced to choose between
`
`certifying compliance with non-discrimination policies that the current Administration has
`
`radically changed without fully explaining or not certifying compliance knowing that failure to
`
`do so may result in loss of federal funds. See Ex. 38, District 4J Cert. Decl. ¶ 32, PLFS-508; Ex.
`
`39, AFT Cert. Decl. ¶ 20, PLFS-536. And both options create substantial risks of investigation
`
`and prosecution for any LEA that continues programming associated with diversity, equity, and
`
`
`
`15 Id.
`16 Id.
`17 Exhibit 44, Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, Supporting Statement for a Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, OMB No.
`1870-0503 (revised June 11, 2024), PLFS-564.
`18 Exhibit 45, See, e.g. Dep’t of Educ., Off. for C.R., Assurance of Compliance – Civil Rights Form, OMB Approval
`No. 1870-0503, https://perma.cc/9A9G-RHA6, PLFS-575.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 37-1 Filed 04/09/25 Page 15 of 46
`
`inclusion values or objectives that is consistent with statutes and decisional law. See District 4J
`
`Cert. Decl. ¶ 20, PLFS-505; AFT Cert. Decl. ¶¶ 16, 20, PLFS-536-537.
`
`As with the initial Dear Colleague Letter, the threat of immediate enforcement based on
`
`certification or non-certification chills Plaintiffs’ First Amendment expression. See District 4J
`
`Cert. Decl. ¶ 33, PLFS-508; AFT Cert. Decl. ¶ 19, PLFS-536. In this way, the Certification
`
`causes the same harms related to K-12 education that Plaintiffs raised in their Memorandum in
`
`Support of Preliminary Injunction, Doc. No. 31-1 (March 28, 2025) (“March 28,
`
`Memorandum”). For example, just as with the Letter, Plaintiffs do not know what activities will
`
`run afoul of the Department’s new position, and whether their work will subject them and their
`
`institution to investigation, or to potential loss of funding. See March 28, Memorandum at 7;
`
`AFT Cert. Decl. ¶ 15, PLFS-536; District 4J Cert. Decl. ¶ 17, PLFS-505. As a result, Plaintiffs
`
`fear they must suppress speech, and potentially eliminate any teaching, program, activity, lesson,
`
`association, office, or research that the Department could decide falls under its broad view of
`
`prohibited DEI. See March 28, Memorandum at 8, 37; District 4J Cert. Decl. ¶ 33, PLFS-508;
`
`AFT Cert. Decl. ¶ 19, PLFS-536. If they are subject to investigation or funding is removed, their
`
`reputations, careers, and essential programming is threatened. March 28, Memorandum at 9-11,
`
`37-38; AFT Cert. Decl. ¶ 17, PLFS-536 (noting risk to members’ jobs); District 4J Cert. Decl. ¶¶
`
`30-31, PLFS-507.
`
`Here, the stakes are raised even higher. The Department has threatened to claw back
`
`already given funds, and invoked the False Claims Act, which is an