EXHIBIT 1
`EXHIBIT 38
`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 51-1 Filed 04/17/25 Page 1 of 6Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document51-1 Filed04/17/25 Page1of6
`EXHIBIT 46
`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 76 Filed 07/17/25 Page 1 of 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
`BALTIMORE DIVISION
`
`AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS
`555 New Jersey Avenue NW
`Washington DC 20001
`
`AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
`1717 K Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington DC 20006
`
`AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS-
`MARYLAND
`21 Governors Court, Suite 120
`Windsor Mill, MD 21244
`
`EUGENE SCHOOL DISTRICT 4J
`200 N. Monroe Street
`Eugene OR 97402
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
`400 Maryland Avenue, SW
`Washington, DC 20202
`
`LINDA MCMAHON, in her official capacity as
`Secretary of Education
`for the Department of Education
`400 Maryland Avenue, SW
`Washington, DC 20202
`
`CRAIG TRAINOR, in his official capacity as
`Acting Assistant Secretary for the Office for Civil
`Rights,
`Department of Education
`400 Maryland Avenue, SW
`Washington, DC 20202
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 25-cv-00628
`Jury Trial Requested
`
`
`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 76 Filed 07/17/25 Page 2 of 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`1. Education is the gateway to opportunity in the United States. It drives individual
`prosperity and national economic growth and is the promise offered by the American Dream.
`Education is also “the very foundation of good citizenship.” Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Topeka,
`347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954). It is a critical component of a functional democracy and the success of
`our society.
`2. Expansion of access to education has been a critical part of our nation’s march
`towards greater opportunity. Though gradual and uneven, our country has expanded universal
`access to free education, from the establishment of the first public schools in the original
`colonies, to overturning “separate but equal,” in Brown v. Board of Education, to passing the
`Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Equal access to education is central to creating a
`vibrant society, economy, and democracy.
`3. Plaintiffs, and countless schools, organizations, and individuals across the
`country, recognize diversity is a critical ingredient to fostering intellectual curiosity and
`educational attainment. Schools, from pre-K to college, are where we learn about our world and
`each other. Students not only acquire knowledge and develop skills, but also wrestle with hard
`truths and engage with those who may have different perspectives. Schools in the United States
`are not only engines to create scholars, they also create community. Innovation,
`entrepreneurship, and the arts are born where ideas are sparked through debate and not stifled
`through homogeny.
`4. Equal access to education means that all students are able to obtain a high-quality
`education in a safe learning environment. The protection of civil rights laws, embodied in the
`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 76 Filed 07/17/25 Page 3 of 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`Fourteenth Amendment and civil rights statutes, has been essential to improving equal access to
`education in the United States for students from all backgrounds and all abilities.
`5. On February 14, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights
`(hereinafter “OCR”) published a Dear Colleague Letter that purports to only “reiterate[] existing
`legal requirements” related to nondiscrimination based on race, color, or national origin under
`Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the “Letter”).
`6. But that is not so. This Letter radically upends and re-writes otherwise well-
`established law. Publication of related “Frequently Asked Questions” on March 1, 2025 (“the
`FAQs”)—while more moderate in tone and less categorical in its attempted clarifications—does
`not change the intent or impact of the Letter.
`7. Contrary to the Letter’s suggestions, no federal law prevents teaching about race
`and race-related topics, and the Supreme Court has not banned efforts to advance diversity,
`equity, and inclusion in education. The U.S. Department of Education (“Department”) is
`attempting to establish a new legal regime when it has neither the lawmaking power of Congress
`nor the interpretative power of the courts.
`8. This effort must be viewed in the context of the administration and Department’s
`other statements related to education: the issuance of an Executive Order “Ending Radical
`Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,”
`1 the cancellation of more than $220 million in capacity-
`building grants because grantees “have been forcing radical agendas onto states and systems,
`including race-based discrimination,”
`2 the termination of $600 million in grants that the
`
`1 Exec. Order, Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling, https://perma.cc/2LM4-FL4S
`(2025).
`2 Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Education, U.S. Dep’t of Education Cancels Divisive and
`Wasteful Grants under the Comprehensive Centers Program (Feb. 19, 2025),
`https://perma.cc/T3T7-L533.
`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 76 Filed 07/17/25 Page 4 of 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`Department said included “inappropriate and unnecessary topics” such as “Diversity, Equity, and
`Inclusion (DEI); social justice activism; ‘anti-racism,’ and instruction on white privilege and
`white supremacy,”
`3 the cancellation of more than $350 million in contracts the Department states
`are “ideologically driven” (using as an example a grantee that advised a focus on equity),4 the
`termination of $33 million in grants to Equity Assistance Centers because they “supported
`divisive training in DEI, Critical Race Theory, and gender identity,”
`5 the issuance of a memo by
`the U.S. Department of Justice that threatens criminal investigations into policies related to
`“diversity, equity and inclusion,”
`6 and the publication of a press release, three days after the
`inauguration, announcing the actions the Department has taken “to eliminate harmful Diversity,
`Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives” in an effort to deprioritize “divisive ideology in our
`schools.”
`7
`9. The Letter misrepresents the state of the law under Title VI and the Constitution
`following the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President
`and Fellows of Harvard Coll., 600 U.S. 801 (2023) (“SFFA”), regarding the consideration of
`race in college admissions. The Letter also represents a stark change from the Department’s past
`interpretations of Title VI and the Constitution after SFFA.
`10. The Letter fails to provide definitions and objective standards for assessing
`discrimination in violation of Title VI, or for assessing what conduct is lawful. Thus, its
`
`3 Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Education, U.S. Department of Education Cuts Over $600 Million
`in Divisive Teacher Training Grants (Feb. 17, 2025), https://perma.cc/E9XJ-K6ZQ.
`4 Press Release, U.S. Department of Education Cancels Additional $350 Million in Woke
`Spending (Feb. 13, 2025), https://perma.cc/55P4-UJN8.
`5 Press Release, U.S. Department of Education Cancels Additional $350 Million in Woke
`Spending (Feb. 13, 2025), https://perma.cc/55P4-UJN8.
`6 Memorandum from the Attorney General on Ending Illegal DEI and DEIA Discrimination and
`Preferences (Feb. 5, 2025), https://perma.cc/N8FR-EWH7.
`7 Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Education, U.S. Department of Education Takes Action to
`Eliminate DEI (Jan. 23, 2025), https://perma.cc/8PJE-Q62L.
`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 76 Filed 07/17/25 Page 5 of 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`references to discrimination and nondiscrimination are too vague to give clear notice of what
`conduct is supposedly prohibited.
`11. The Letter suggests, however, that a wide variety of core instruction, activities,
`and programs that schools, from pre-kindergarten through post-graduate education, use to teach
`and support their students now may constitute illegal discrimination.
`12. For example, the Letter appears to restrict the teaching of history and other
`subjects that acknowledge “systemic and structural racism,” claiming that such instruction is
`discriminatory. It is not clear how a school could teach a fulsome U.S. History course without
`teaching about slavery, the Missouri Compromise, the Emancipation Proclamation, the forced
`relocation of Native American tribes, the laws of Jim Crow, Brown v. Board of Education, the
`internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, or the Civil Rights Acts, the Fair
`Housing Act, and the Voting Rights Act without running afoul of this prohibition.
`13. Likewise, the Letter discourages and appears to restrict voluntary associations or
`student affinity groups organized around identity, such as a Black Student Union. These groups
`are open to all yet provide programming to support and amplify the lived experiences of students
`or faculty who are members of a particular racial demographic.
`14. The Letter appears to ban all programming in support of Diversity, Equity, and
`Inclusion (“DEI”), again despite the fact that such programming is lawful and previous
`presidential administrations of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden
`have supported such efforts.
`15. Finally, despite invoking the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision on college
`admissions, the Letter goes well beyond that holding and states that many legal, evidence-based,
`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 76 Filed 07/17/25 Page 6 of 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`and well-accepted ways to foster inclusivity and increase diversity of all types are nevertheless
`considered discriminatory by this administration.
`16. The Letter, if implemented, would have two devastating impacts on schools. First,
`it would undermine schools as a training ground for informed, prepared citizens by denying
`students opportunities to hone critical thinking skills and expand their world views by
`confronting new or opposing viewpoints. And second, it would hamper efforts to further equal
`access to education, and the promise of opportunity, that have been a central tenet of the United
`States since our founding.
`17. This Letter is an unlawful attempt by the Department to impose this
`administration’s particular views of how schools should operate as if it were the law. But it is
`not. Title VI’s requirements have not changed, nor has the meaning of the SFFA decision,
`despite the Department’s views on the matter.
`18. The Letter states that the Department will “assess compliance . . . beginning no
`later than [February 28]”—including the explicit threat of loss of federal funding. This Letter
`will immediately and irreparably harm schools, educators, students, and communities around the
`country at all levels by requiring them to comply with guidance that violates the First
`Amendment, the Fifth Amendment due to its vagueness, and the Administrative Procedure Act
`in multiple ways.
`19. On April 3, 2025, the Department of Education took another 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.
`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 76 Filed 07/17/25 Page 7 of 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`20. The Department failed to follow the appropriate process for issuing this
`Certification, including failing to follow the Paperwork Reduction Act. For that, and many other
`reasons, the Certification violates the APA, chills protected expression and association, imposes
`an unlawfully vague and overbroad requirement, and threatens to enforce yet another
`impermissible condition on federal funding.
`PARTIES
`
`21. Plaintiff American Federation of Teachers (“AFT”), an affiliate of the AFL-
`CIO, is a membership organization representing 1.8 million members, who reside in every U.S.
`state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands and who are
`employed as pre-K through 12th-grade teachers, early childhood educators, paraprofessionals,
`and other school-related personnel; higher education faculty and professional staff; federal, state,
`and local government employees; and nurses and other healthcare professionals. AFT’s purpose
`is to promote fairness, democracy, economic opportunity, and high-quality public education,
`healthcare, and public services for students, their families, and communities their members serve.
`AFT does so by ensuring its members receive fair pay and benefits for their critical work, and by
`fighting for safe working conditions that also benefit students, patients and all those who use
`public services. Helping children and students is at the core of AFT’s mission. So too is the
`economic security and dignity of AFT’s members and their families. AFT is headquartered in
`Washington, DC.
`22. Plaintiff American Sociological Association (“ASA”), founded in 1905, is the
`national professional membership association for sociologists and others who are interested in
`sociology and the largest association of its kind in the world with about 9,000 members teaching
`and conducting research in the U.S. and abroad. Its mission is to serve sociologists in their work,
`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 76 Filed 07/17/25 Page 8 of 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`advance sociology as a science and profession, and promote the contributions and use of
`sociology to society. ASA members include students, scholars, and teachers working in a full
`range of educational institutions, and people employed in government agencies and nonprofit
`and private sector organizations.
`23. Plaintiff AFT- Maryland, an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers,
`AFL-CIO, represents more than 18,000 members in the State of Maryland. Its members include
`local unions that represent pre-K through 12th grade teachers, paraprofessionals and other
`school-related personnel, and higher education faculty and professional staff.
`24. Plaintiff Eugene School District 4J (“District 4J”) is a K-12 public school
`district in Oregon’s southern Willamette Valley. It spans 155 square miles. Approximately 85%
`of the city of Eugene lies within the boundaries of District 4J, as does the town of Coburg, and a
`part of Linn County. The school district serves approximately 16,000 students through 19
`elementary schools, eight middle schools, four comprehensive high schools, and one alternative
`high school. These students include those at five publicly funded charter schools that are separate
`legal entities but receive funds through the Eugene School District 4J. Approximately 35% of
`students in District 4J are Black, Indigenous, Latino/a, or otherwise people of color.
`25. Defendant U.S. Department of Education is a federal agency headquartered in
`Washington, DC, at 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20202.
`26. Defendant Linda McMahon is the Secretary for Education. She is sued in her
`official capacity.
`8
`27. Defendant Craig Trainor is the Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at
`the Department of Education. He is sued in his official capacity.
`
`8 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Secretary McMahon has been substituted as a party for
`Denise L. Carter, who was Acting Secretary when this litigation was originally filed.
`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 76 Filed 07/17/25 Page 9 of 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`28. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter because the claims arise
`under the Constitution and laws of the United States, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and because the
`Defendants are United States officials. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2).
`29. This Court has the authority to enter a declaratory judgment and to provide
`preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure, under Title 28, Sections 2201 and 2202 of the United States Code, and under
`the All Writs Act.
`30. Venue lies in this District because Plaintiff AFT-Maryland is headquartered in
`this judicial district and each defendant is an agency of the United States or an officer of the
`United States sued in his or her official capacity. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1).
`LEGAL BACKGROUND
`
`Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
`
`31. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides:
`No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national
`origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
`subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal
`financial assistance.
`
`42 U.S.C. § 2000d. OCR enforces Title VI for all recipients of federal funds from the
`Department. See id.; id. § 2000d-1; see also 34 C.F.R. § 100 et seq. (Title VI implementing
`regulations for the Department). The vast majority of all schools in the country receive some
`federal funds and are therefore subject to Title VI.
`32. OCR conducts rulemaking, issues policy guidance, conducts compliance reviews
`and investigates complaints to ensure recipients comply with federal civil rights laws, including
`Title VI. See generally 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.
`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 76 Filed 07/17/25 Page 10 of 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`The Supreme Court’s 2023 Decision Regarding Race In College Admissions
`33. On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court issued decisions in Students for Fair
`Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions,
`Inc. v. University of North Carolina (“UNC”), 600 U.S. 181 (2023) (together, “SFFA”). The
`Supreme Court held that Harvard and UNC’s practice of using an applicant’s racial identity as a
`formal criterion during the admissions process in undergraduate admissions was a violation of
`the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
`1964 because the Court found that the universities’ stated interests were not sufficiently
`compelling or narrowly tailored to justify the “race-based admissions programs” at issue.
`34. The Court’s decision did not have the far-reaching effect Defendants claim. It did
`not extend outside of higher education admissions at all, such as to admission at K-12 schools or
`any other aspect of K-12 schools.9 It did not extend beyond race-based programs at all, leaving
`untouched the law on race-neutral programs that is simply beyond the scope of the SFFA
`decision. Nor did it change the law in any other area of civil rights with respect to education. Yet
`relying on that very decision, the Department claims many things within these contexts are now
`unlawful.
`35. Following the SFFA decision, the Department issued multiple guidance
`documents on how schools could continue to support diversity in education, consistent with the
`opinion, one issued jointly with the Department of Justice.10 In this guidance, the Department
`
`9 The Court also recognized that it might not even extend to all higher education admissions, if
`there were other unique factors at play, such as at military academies. Id. at 213 n.4. The
`consideration of race in admission or assignment to K-12 schools is governed by a distinct
`framework, not by SFFA. See Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District
`No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) (“Parents Involved”).
`10 U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Questions And Answers Regarding The Supreme Court’s Decision In
`Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard College And University Of North Carolina (Aug.
`
`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 76 Filed 07/17/25 Page 11 of 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`advised schools on lawful approaches to increasing diversity that were not affected by SFFA.
`Together, the guidances make clear that diversity and inclusion policies and practices are not
`inconsistent with existing anti-discrimination law.
`The First Amendment’s Protections for Free Speech and Free Association
`36. The First Amendment provides all Americans with essential freedoms, including
`the freedom of speech and the right to assemble, which create academic freedom. The First
`Amendment protects the freedom of expression of all Americans, no matter their point of view.
`The government may not censor, discriminate, or apply rules inconsistently based on content or
`viewpoint. The First Amendment also protects the freedom of speech and freedom of expression
`from laws that are so overbroad as to prohibit a substantial amount of protected speech. U.S.
`Const. amend I.
`37. In higher education, the Constitution broadly protects the right of scholars,
`teachers, and researchers to think, speak, teach, and associate without governmental interference.
`The “essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident”
`and educators play a “vital role in a democracy.” Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250
`(1957). Depending on substance and context, speech by teachers in public primary and
`secondary schools is also entitled to some First Amendment protection. See Pickering v. Bd. of
`Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist., 391 U.S. 563 (1968).
`38. Throughout our nation’s history, courts have consistently prevented various state
`actors, including executive branch officials, from trampling the First Amendment rights of
`federal fund recipients. See, e.g., Agency for Int’l Dev. v. All. for Open Soc’y, 570 U.S. 205
`
`14, 2023), https://perma.cc/8QTR-8PMD (last accessed Feb. 1, 2025); U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Off.
`of the Undersec’y, Strategies for Increasing Diversity and Opportunity in Higher Education
`(Sept. 28, 2023), https://perma.cc/XTP4-SRAL (last accessed Feb. 21, 2025).
`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 76 Filed 07/17/25 Page 12 of 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`(2013) (Roberts, J.) (striking down requirement that nonprofits express opposition to disfavored
`policies before receiving federal funds); W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624
`(1943) (finding the government cannot force students to recite the pledge of allegiance).
`The Fifth Amendment’s Protection Against Vagueness
`39. The Constitution protects people from being deprived of their rights, liberty, or
`property interest without due process. U.S. Const. amend. V. A federal pronouncement, such as a
`Dear Colleague Letter or a required certification from an enforcement agency, is
`unconstitutionally vague when it “fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of
`what is prohibited, or is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory
`enforcement.” United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 304 (2008). In other words, the
`Constitution demands clarity and consistency.
`The Administrative Procedure Act’s Framework for Review
`40. The Administrative Procedure Act authorizes judicial review of final agency
`action. 5 U.S.C. § 704. Final agency actions are those (1) that “mark the ‘consummation’ of the
`agency’s decisionmaking process” and (2) “by which rights or obligations have been determined,
`or from which legal consequences will flow.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 178 (1997)
`(quotation marks omitted).
`41. Under the APA, a court shall “hold unlawful and set aside” agency actions found
`to be arbitrary, capricious, contrary to constitutional rights, in excess of statutory authority, or
`issued without observance of procedure rights. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)-(D).
`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 76 Filed 07/17/25 Page 13 of 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`42. On Friday, February 14, 2025, Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig
`Trainor issued a Dear Colleague Letter regarding discrimination on the basis of race, color, or
`national origin.11
`The Letter’s Purpose, Scope, and Effect
`43. The Letter purports to “clarify and reaffirm the nondiscrimination obligations of
`schools and other entities that receive federal financial assistance” required by Title VI, “the
`Equal Protection Clause of the United States constitution, and other relevant authorities,”
`following SFFA. Letter at 1-2.
`44. The Letter applies to schools at all levels, without differentiation, as “‘school’ is
`used generally to refer to preschool, elementary, secondary, and postsecondary educational
`institutions[.]’” Letter at 1 n.1.
`45. The Letter identifies several practices that it forbids as “impermissible” practices
`whereby “the educational institution violates the law.” Letter at 2.
`46. The descriptions in the Letter of what is prohibited are broad, vague, and
`imprecise. But to the extent the guidance within the Letter can be understood, or are read
`literally, the activities and programs that are described as unlawful include: classroom instruction
`that confronts difficult and uncomfortable subjects and imparts critical thinking skills;
`orientations and trainings that equip students with the communication skills and tools to navigate
`complex social dynamics with honesty, compassion, and empathy; and support services and
`extra-curricular activities that enable students to maximize learning opportunities.
`
`11 Letter from Craig Trainor, Acting Assistant Sec’y for C.R., U.S. Dep’t of Educ., to Colleagues
`(Feb. 14, 2025), https://perma.cc/SF4T-WA33 (last accessed Feb. 21, 2025).
`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 76 Filed 07/17/25 Page 14 of 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`47. On February 27, 2025, the Department launched a new portal—End DEI—on its
`website through which the public can submit discrimination complaints for investigation by the
`Department.12 The limited explanatory text at the portal equates DEI with illegal discrimination
`and ties both to “divisive ideologies” and “indoctrination” as follows:
`The U.S. Department of Education is committed to ensuring all students have
`access to meaningful learning free of divisive ideologies and indoctrination. This
`submission form is an outlet for students, parents, teachers, and the broader
`community to report illegal discriminatory practices at institutions of learning.
`The Department of Education will utilize community submissions to identify
`potential areas for investigation.
`
`The portal provides no explanation that DEI programs are not only legal, but have long been
`encouraged under federal law and supported by Congressional appropriations. Nor does the
`portal provide any guidelines, criteria, or legal standards for determining whether and how the
`perspectives targeted— “DEI,” “divisive ideologies,” and “indoctrination”—might be
`discriminatory.
`48. Given that the Department’s Office for Civil Rights has long had an online portal
`for filing complaints, this new portal appears to be the new administration’s targeted solicitation
`for complaints reflecting a particular viewpoint on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
`13
`49. On February 28, 2025, the Department issued a guidance document titled
`“Frequently Asked Questions About Racial Preferences And Stereotypes Under Title VI of the
`Civil Rights Act”
`14 (“FAQs”) that was “intended to anticipate and answer questions in response”
`
`12 U.S. Dep’t of Education, https://perma.cc/4GDL-57TS (last visited Mar. 4, 2025).
`13 U.S. Dep’t of Education, File a Complaint, https://perma.cc/595N-N8RN (last visited Mar. 4,
`2025).
`14 U.S. Dep’t of Education, Frequently Asked Questions About Racial Preferences and
`Stereotypes Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (Feb. 28, 2025), https://perma.cc/KB53-4SQ3.
`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 76 Filed 07/17/25 Page 15 of 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`to the Letter.15 The FAQs do not rescind the Letter or its statement that compliance will be
`assessed “based on the understanding embodied in this letter.” While more moderate in tone and
`less categorical in setting forth prohibitions, the FAQs do not correct the defects in the Letter.
`For example:
`○ The FAQs further confuse the Letter’s categorical restrictions on speech and
`academic freedom by acknowledging the First Amendment, but then warning that
`classrooms will be judged on the basis of whether instruction and discussions
`create a “racially hostile environment” without supplying legally relevant
`standards. Answer to FAQ 9.
`○ The FAQs acknowledge the limitations of the Department’s control over the
`content of school curricula, but also state, with no support, that certain curricula,
`like social emotional learning and culturally responsive teaching, are
`discriminatory.
`○ The FAQs further confuse the Letter’s restrictions on events and celebrations, by
`saying they may be permissible, while also warning that such events will be
`judged on the basis of their specific programming and the extent to which they
`“discourage members of all races from attending, either by excluding or
`discouraging students of a particular race or races, or by creating hostile
`environments based on race for students who do participate.” Answer to FAQ 8.
`
`15 Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Education, U.S. Department of Education Releases Frequently
`Asked Questions on Dear Colleague Letter About Racial Preferencing (Mar. 1, 2025),
`https://perma.cc/5UYY-S4VF.
`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 76 Filed 07/17/25 Page 16 of 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`○ The FAQs do not explicitly address affinity groups and whether such groups,
`which often are designed to support students of color, would be viewed by the
`Department as prohibited under the Letter.
`○ The FAQs expand, without explanation or support, the “zero-sum” reasoning
`discussed in SFFA–where admission to a class of limited capacity was viewed as
`a finite set of opportunities or prizes–to administrative support. Answer to FAQ 6.
`50. The level at which these legal terms, like “racially hostile environment" are
`discussed is notable. There is significant case law that defines what conduct may or may not
`create a racially hostile environment. And yet, no cases are cited to provide clarity to schools or
`teachers, and none of the legal elements that define a “racially hostile environment” are
`provided.
`51. Indeed, the FAQs increase the confusion, seeming to contradict the Letter’s broad
`language. The FAQs, for example, include an unsupported statement that “social-emotional
`learning” serves as a veil for discriminatory policies. This type of statement leaves schools less
`sure what OCR considers permissible, and increases the subjectivity and arbitrariness embodied
`in the Letter that has given rise to the chilling effect, due process concerns, and APA violations
`described here.
` The Letter Is Intended to Constrain Nondiscriminatory Teaching and Learning
`52. No federal law prevents teaching about race and race-related topics. And multiple
`federal statutes prohibit the Department from dictating institutional and educational programs
`Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG Document 76 Filed 07/17/25 Page 17 of 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`and curricular choices,16 which are typically decisions made by states, localities, and educational
`institutions.
`53. The Letter appears to broadly curtail schools’ and teachers’ ability to determine
`what and how to teach, and school districts’ rights and responsibilities to select curriculum and
`implement state and local education content standards and conduct operations in compliance
`with state law. It states: “Educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the
`false premise that the United States is built upon ‘systemic and structural racism’ and advanced
`discriminatory policies and practices. . . . But under any banner, discrimination on the basis of
`race, color, or national origin is, and has been, and will continue to be illegal.” Letter at 2. In
`other words, it describes teaching about “systemic and structural racism” and curriculum that
`includes “explicit race-consciousness” as unlawful discrimination.
`
`54. Although the scope of this prohibition is not clear, on its face it appears to ban
`any meaningful discussion of “race-conscious” curriculum topics, including the many ways in
`which racial discrimination was written into law from the country’s earliest years—even though
`topics like slavery, the Emancipation Proclamation, the creation of Native American reservations
`and forced relocation of tribes, xenophobic responses to waves of immigration (Irish, Southern
`European, Eastern European, and Asian), and the Civil Rights movement, are required teaching
`in school by state or local education standards.
`55. In Oregon, for example:
`
`16 See, e.g