Universities and DEI: DC Prosecutor's Clash with Top Law School

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices have recently faced widespread discussions and legal challenges, with college campuses seeing a rising storm of court threats and media coverage. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion practices have been increasingly used in various companies and universities over the past decade, but efforts have been ongoing since the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. While initially focused on racial issues in hiring practices, initiatives have expanded to reconsider gender, religion, and other groups as a growing network of professionals has emerged to help organizations increase DEI in their workforce [1].

Despite facing significant cultural backlash in recent years, over the past few months, DEI practices have been challenged with legal obstacles from the Supreme Court and the Trump administration. Edward Martin, the Interim Attorney for the District of Columbia, was appointed by President Trump in January.

On February 17th, Martin sent a letter to the Dean of Georgetown Law School, suggesting that he would open an inquiry into the school's use of DEI in its curriculum: "it has come to my attention reliably that Georgetown Law School continues to teach and promote DEI. This is unacceptable" [2]. Martin questioned when Georgetown Law would remove DEI from their curriculum, but made no specific mention as to which DEI practices he disapproved of. Although his letter was only an inquiry, he threatened that "no applicant from our fellows program? Who is a student or affiliated with a law school or university that continues to teach and utilize DEI will be considered." 

While Martin does not have the legal authority to open an inquiry into a university, he relied on his ability as an employer to potentially bar Georgetown or other university students from working at the DC prosecutor's office. However, the Dean of Georgetown Law School challenged the constitutionality of this request.

Dean William Treanor dismissed Martin's inquiry and affirmed Georgetown Law School's commitment to DEI. Treanor claims that the "letter challenges Georgetown's ability to define [their] mission as an educational institution" [3]. Furthermore, Treanor even charged that the order violated the First Amendment and that the government cannot direct Georgetown on what to teach. The Dean also emphasized that Georgetown is a Jesuit and Catholic university and that an attack on its teaching styles and curriculum was an attack on its mission.

The recent legal attacks on DEI have mostly stemmed from the Trump administration, but they have gained much of their strength through the recent case, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) vs. Harvard College (2023). In this case, the SCOTUS majority decided that race-conscious admissions in higher education violate the Equal Protection Clause [4]. Following the decision, universities across the country have been forced to alter or retract their DEI policies surrounding admissions, and many private companies have followed suit. However, some practices of DEI have gained constitutional justification under the First Amendment in recent cases. In Saadeh v. NJ Bar Association (2024), the Appellate Court upheld the right of "expressive association" that allowed the Bar Association to select governing members using inclusion practices commonly used as a part of DEI [5]. In this case, the Court relied on a previous case that allowed associations to decide their point of view when selecting their members, even if that point of view included DEI practices as a part of its beliefs.

While universities will be unable to use DEI recruiting practices per SFFA, universities such as Georgetown Law School are still allowed to teach or include DEI in their curriculum. While Edward Martin's letter asked intriguing questions about the continued role of DEI in higher education, there is not yet legal precedent-and there likely will never be-for the federal government deciding what universities can teach. The current Supreme Court decision on affirmative action in universities prohibits race considerations in hiring, financial aid, and housing, but curriculum restrictions have not found viability in the courts.

In the ongoing debate over Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, legal challenges continue to shape the boundaries of what universities can and cannot do. While the Supreme Court's decision in SFFA has placed limits on race-conscious admissions, universities like Georgetown Law remain free to incorporate DEI principles into their teachings. Ed Martin's letter raises broader questions about the future of DEI in higher education, but his attempt to use employment restrictions to control academic content lacks clear legal precedent. As legal battles over DEI continue, the core issue remains whether opposition to these initiatives will translate into enforceable legal restrictions or remain a largely political dispute.

Sources:

1. Julie Kratz, History of DEI: Why It Matters for the Future, Forbes (Dec. 29, 2024, 8:00 AM), https://www.forbes.com/sites/juliekratz/2024/12/29/history-of-dei-why-it-matters-for-the-future.
2. Letter from William M. Treanor to Edward R. Martin (Mar. 6, 2025) (on file with author).
3. Letter from Edward R. Martin to William M. Treanor (Feb. 17, 2025) (on file with author).
4. Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 600 U.S. ___, No. 20-1199 (2023), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf.
5. Saadeh v. N.J. State Bar Ass’n, No. A-2201-22, 256 N.J. 495 (2024), https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2024/a2201-22.pdf.