Week in Review – Major Announcement from the Department of Education, Continued Agency Changes, and More DEI Related Actions

Headlines this week largely focused on the Department of Education, and rightfully so. As announced on Tuesday, President Trump’s administration terminated over 1,300 Department of Education employees this week – nearly 50% of the Department’s total workforce. As described in greater detail, below, this “reduction in force” will likely greatly impede the Department’s ability to carry out several of its operations, including investigations into alleged violations of civil rights laws.

However, the Trump administration took several other notable actions this week that may have gotten lost in light of the Department of Education’s announcement. For example, we saw the first instance of threatened loss of federal funding due to Title IX violations for failure to comply with the Trump administration’s definition of “sex.” Additionally, there was a flurry of action related to President Trump’s DEI Executive Orders.

As with our previous Week in Review alerts, below, we summarize and provide our insights into the major activity from this week.

The Week in Brief:

(1) The Department of Education terminated nearly 50% of its staff and closed 7 Office for Civil Rights offices, including the Chicago office.

(2) Congress confirmed a new Secretary of Labor with bipartisan support.

(3) Maine educational institutions face threatened loss of federal funding from multiple federal agencies based on alleged violations of Title IX and the Trump administration’s definition of “sex.”

(4) Sixty universities are under investigation for alleged anti-Semitic discrimination, and Columbia University may lose $400 Million for permitting “illegal protests” and failing to protect students from anti-Semitic harassment.

(5) Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York Attorneys General issue guidance regarding DEI Executive Orders and Department of Education “Dear Colleague” letter.

(6) A District Court clarifies that an injunction blocking portions of President Trump’s Executive Orders applies to all federal agencies.

(7) President Trump Directs the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to investigate DEI practices of law firms.

Franczek Insights

1. Slashing of ED and Chicago OCR

On Tuesday, March 11, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education announced it would conduct a reduction in force (“RIF”) of more than 1,300 Department employees – nearly 50% of all the Department’s employees. In a press release, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon stated that the decision to lay off these employees “reflects the Department of Education’s commitment to efficiency, accountability, and ensuring that resources are directed where they matter most: to students, parents, and teachers.” Although the RIF was announced on Tuesday, the impacted employees will not be immediately terminated. Rather, employees will be placed on an administrative leave beginning on March 21, 2025, until June 9, 2025, at which point they will be terminated.

In our previous Week in Review alert, we noted it was widely expected that President Trump would soon issue an executive order dismantling portions of the Department. However, we also noted that the Department of Education was created by an act of Congress and, as such, President Trump likely could not order a complete dissolution of the Department through executive action. Tuesday’s RIF appears to be President Trump’s solution to this problem. In effect, maintaining the Department while slashing staffing to stymie the Department’s operations.

The wide-reaching RIF impacts all divisions within the Department of Education. However, the RIF particularly targets the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”), with 243 of OCR’s 550 employees receiving termination letters. The OCR is the branch of the Department of Education that ensures equal access to education and enforces civil rights laws as applied to schools. Notably, OCR is responsible for investigating allegations of discrimination based on race and gender – two protected categories that have faced increased scrutiny under the Trump administration through various recent executive orders.

Relatedly, and of particular note to our clients in Illinois, the Department announced that it will terminate all employees within the Chicago office of the OCR. Resultingly, the Chicago OCR office will completely close by the end of the RIF process on June 9. The Department will also close its offices in Philadelphia, New York City, Dallas, San Francisco, Boston, and Cleveland. Collectively, those offices historically oversaw enforcement of civil rights laws for half of the country. The only remaining OCR offices will be those in Atlanta, Denver, Kansas City, Seattle, and Washington D.C.

As of the date of this alert, it is unclear how the OCR’s cases will be redistributed now that half of its offices are closing.  It is no secret that, even when operating at 100% staffing, OCR’s caseload was already backlogged, with some cases taking years to reach resolution. The decision to close seven OCR offices will likely add to this backlog and may result in fewer enforcement actions in general from the OCR. Additionally, Attorneys General of 20 states, including Illinois, have joined together in a lawsuit seeking to prevent President Trump from dismantling the Department. It remains to be seen what impact this lawsuit may have on the Department’s announced plans.

We will continue to monitor developments regarding the Department, and the OCR specifically, and report back as additional information becomes available.

2. Secretary of Labor Confirmed with Bipartisan Support

On Tuesday, March 11, 2025, Lori Chavez-DeRemer was sworn in as the Secretary of Labor after confirmation by the Senate. Her appointment places her in charge of enforcing federal labor laws to guarantee workers’ rights to fair, safe, and healthy working conditions, including minimum hourly wage and overtime pay, protection against employment discrimination, and unemployment insurance. Chavez-DeRemer previously served as the U.S. Representative for Oregon’s 5th congressional district from 2023 to 2025 and as the mayor of Happy Valley, Oregon, from 2011 to 2019.

Because Chavez-DeRemer has a history of being more pro-union than some of her Republican counterparts, she was confirmed by a 67-32 margin in the Senate with bipartisan support and received the backing of labor unions for her confirmation.

While she served as a representative, Chavez-DeRemer was a co-sponsor of the “Social Security Fairness Act,” proposing to repeal the government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions of the Social Security Act and preventing public-sector workers from having their Social Security benefits docked because of government pension benefits. That Act was signed into law in January of 2025.

Chavez-DeRemer also co-sponsored the “Protecting the Right to Organize Act” (the “PRO Act”), proposed legislation to amend the National Labor Relations Act, Labor Management Relations Act, and Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act to strengthen protections for workers’ rights to organize. The Act never received a vote by the full House of Representatives.

3. Maine Threatened with Loss of Funding for Educational Programs as Federal Agencies Open Investigations into Alleged Violations of Title IX

Within the last month, the U.S. Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Justice have all announced investigations into the state of Maine for alleged violations of the president’s “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” Executive Order. While the state has yet to face permanent funding consequences, the open investigations threaten significant grants for educational institutions in the state.

We previously reported that on February 21, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education announced that it had opened an investigation into the Maine Department of Education under Title IX based on allegations that it “continues to allow male athletes to compete in girls’ interscholastic athletics” and “denied female athletes female-only intimate facilities.”

After the Department of Education announced its investigation, the Governor of Maine, Janet Mills, issued a statement saying that any attempt to “withhold Federal funding authorized and appropriated by Congress … in an attempt to coerce someone into compliance … is a violation of our Constitution and of our laws.”

The same day, February 21, 2025, the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced an investigation into the Maine Department of Education. Four days later, on February 25, 2025, HHS issued a notice of violation to the Governor and Attorney General alerting them of its finding that the Maine Department of Education was in violation of Title IX. The determination was based on the Department’s financial support of the Maine Principals Association, the governing body for youth sports in the state of Maine, based on its policy allowing student athletes to participate in sports that correspond with their gender identity. 

On February 22, 2025, the USDA also launched a compliance investigation of the state of Maine under Title IX “based upon indications that the State of Maine is openly disregarding President Trump’s … ‘Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports’” Executive Order. In a press release announcing that investigation, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins said that the “USDA is committed to upholding the President’s executive order, meaning any institution that chooses to disregard it can count on losing future funding.” The notice informed the State that the USDA’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights was initiating a compliance review, and that if the University of Maine or other entities receiving funds from USDA be found to be out of compliance, additional funding may be in jeopardy.

Pursuant to the investigation, on Monday, March 10, the USDA notified the University that it had paused funding of $56 million in grants to the University. However, on Wednesday, March 12, U.S. Senator Susan Collins announced that funding had been restored.

Finally, on February 25, 2025, U.S. Attorney Pam Bondi issued a letter to Governor Mills placing the State “on notice” that “[r]equiring girls to compete against boys in sports and athletic events violates Title IX” and that “federal law-including Title IX-is the supreme Law of the Land.” As such, Bondi said that it “does not matter if Maine state law allows, or even requires, state athletic associations or other similar entities to require girls to compete against boys in sports and athletic events,” and that state entities must follow federal law, “not because we live in a dictatorship but because the Constitution requires states to follow the supreme law of the land.”

Other Threats to Federal Funding for Programs in Maine

Though not explicitly linked to the State’s alleged failure to comply with the Executive Order, other federal agencies have also threatened to withhold funding to Maine. On February 28, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration notified Maine it would be discontinuing funding for the $4.5 million Maine Sea Grant, though U.S. Senator Susan Collins later announced that the decision had been reversed. On March 6, the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration directed Social Security employees to end two contracts with the State of Maine, for the “Enumeration at Birth” program and “Electronic Death Registry,” though the Acting Commissioner later announced that he realized “in retrospect” that canceling the contracts “created an undue burden on the people of Maine.”  

4. Sixty Universities Under Investigation by the Department of Education Over Anti-semitism Claims

On Monday, March 10, 2025, the Department of Education sent letters to 60 universities informing them that they were under investigation for potential Title VI violations related to anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment. Title VI prohibits recipients of federal funding from discriminating against individuals on the basis of race, color, and national origin. The Department defines “national origin” as including a “shared (Jewish) ancestry.” The Department’s letters allege that the identified universities may have failed to uphold their obligations under Title VI based on complaints the Department received – though the Department’s press release does not identify the source of those complaints.

The letters also threaten potential enforcement actions if the identified universities “do not fulfill their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students on campus, including uninterrupted access to campus facilities and educational opportunities.” The Department’s announcement comes closely on the heels of a joint announcement from the Department of Education and the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-semitism, including the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. General Services Administration, stating that Columbia University will lose at least $400 Million in federal funding due to permitting “illegal protests” and “fail[ing] to protect students from anti-Semitic harassment on campus[.]”

5. Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York Attorneys General Issue Guidance Regarding DEI Executive Orders and Department of Education “Dear Colleague” letter

The Offices of the Attorney General for the States of Illinois, New York, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued Joint Guidance on Wednesday, March 5, 2025, in an effort to voice their joint position on the legal landscape for Institutions of Higher Education and K-12 schools in light of the presidential administration’s recent “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” and “Ending Radical and Wasteful DEI Programs and Preferencing” Executive Orders (the “Anti-DEI Orders”), as well as the Department of Education’s efforts to effectuate those Orders through its February 14, 2025 “Dear Colleague” letter and February 28, 2025 FAQ.  We previously reported on the Executive Orders, Dear Colleague letter, and FAQ.

Guidance Takes Issue with Administration’s Legal Conclusions

The Joint Guidance states that, while the Dear Colleague letter and February FAQ correctly identify federal civil rights laws that apply to Institutes of Higher Education and K-12 schools, they “misconstrue Supreme Court precedent, wrongly imply that it might be unlawful for schools to consider the impact of policies and practices on diversity, and create a misimpression of the impact of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility programming and its legality.”

The Joint Guidance takes issue with the assertion in the Dear Colleague letter that the Supreme Court’s holding in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (“SFFA”) “sets forth a framework for evaluating the use of race” under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Guidance says that under SFFA, the provision of a “concrete benefit” by a school based on a particular individual’s race is subject to the strict scrutiny standard. However, the Guidance says that a school may still “lawfully consider the ways in race affected a particular student’s life, as the Supreme Court itself pointed out in SFFA.”  

The Guidance also asserts that the Dear Colleague letter and FAQ are incorrect when they suggest that it would be unlawful for educational institutions to implement a race-neutral policy in order to increase racial or other forms of diversity, and pointed to the SFFA court’s decision as well as subsequent lower court decisions interpreting SFFA reaffirming that it is not unlawful for a school to implement race-neutral admissions practices in order to increase student body diversity.

Finally, the Joint Guidance says that the characterization of DEI programs as “frequently preferenc[ing] certain racial groups” and “stigmatiz[ing] students who belong to particular racial groups based on crude racial stereotypes” is incorrect. Instead, the Joint Guidance asserts, such programs confer important educational and social benefits for students, including fostering learning environments that provide all students an equal opportunity to learn, better preparing students to work in a diverse country and participate in a multiracial democracy, and promoting fair treatment and eliminating stigmatization.

According to the Joint Guidance, “nothing in the “Dear Colleague” letter or FAQ changes existing law and well-established legal principles that encourage—and even require—schools to promote educational opportunity for students of all backgrounds.” Ultimately, the Guidance makes clear that in the view of the AGs for Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York, the Dear Colleague letter and FAQ have “no bearing on … lawful DEI programs,” including classroom instruction or course offerings that address race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, religion, or related topics.

The AG’s Guidance takes similar positions as legal challenges to the Dear Colleague letter brought by the American Federation of Teachers (“AFT”), National Education Association (“NEA”).  We previously reported on these suits here. 

6. District Court Says Injunction Blocking Portions of President Trump’s Executive Orders Applies to All Federal Agencies

On Tuesday, March 11, 2025, Judge Adam B. Abelson in the District Court of Maryland clarified that his February 21, 2025 order (discussed here), granting a preliminary injunction blocking portions of President Trump’s “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing” and “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” Executive Orders (the “Anti-DEI Orders”), applies across the entire federal government.

In the case, National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump (“NADOHE v. Trump”), Judge Abelson previously found that certain provisions of the administration’s Anti-DEI Orders were facially unconstitutional and run afoul of the free speech protections of the First Amendment and the due process protections of the Fifth Amendment. The court’s February 21 order enjoined “Defendants other than the President, and other persons who are in active concert or participation with Defendants” from taking certain actions pursuant to challenged provisions of the executive orders.

After the court’s ruling, Counsel for the Government notified Plaintiffs’ counsel that the Government will instruct only named agency Defendants to comply with the Order. Plaintiffs filed a motion for clarification on February 27, 2025, asking the court to clarify if its previous order and injunction applied to federal executive agencies, departments, and commissions that were not named as defendants in the case. The Plaintiffs argued that every federal agency is in “active concert or participation” with the Government, including the President, the Department of Justice, and the Office of Management and Budget.

The Government opposed the motion and argued that finding that other unnamed departments, agencies and commissions are subject to the order would be inconsistent with Article III’s standing requirement because it would bind “nonparties who would [otherwise] not be bound by the judgment.” The Government also argued that applying the injunction to all federal agencies would violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) which governs the scope of the application of injunctions.

The court sided with Plaintiffs and found that the injunction did apply to the unnamed departments, agencies, and commissions. The court reasoned that the scope of the injunction is appropriate “given the claims, the nature of the challenged provisions, and the ways in which Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood that the provisions are facially unconstitutional.” Specifically, the court cited the Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, as well as a finding that failure to apply the injunction across the federal government would risk Plaintiffs’ speech being chilled by many non-named federal executive agencies. The court reasoned that the Executive Orders applied to all federal agencies, so the injunction should too.

Notably, after the court issued its order finding against the government, President Trump issued an executive order, “Ensuring the Enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c),” directing heads of executive departments and agencies to that are involved in cases where plaintiffs are seeking injunctions to demand that the plaintiffs “post security in an amount that the court considers proper to cover potential costs and damages to the enjoined or restrained parties.” At least one District Court has already declined the Government’s request to impose the bond requirement, citing an exception to the bond requirement in suits to enforce important federal rights or public interests.

Other Challenges to Attempts to Implement Anti-DEI Orders

Several other suits challenging the Anti-DEI orders are currently pending in other jurisdictions, including Doe 1 v. U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, brought in the Eastern District of Virginia; National Urban League v. Trump, brought in the District Court of the District of Columbia; San Francisco Aids Foundation v. Trump, brought in the Northern District of California; Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump, brought in the Northern District of Illinois; and American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education v. McMahon, brought in the District Court of Maryland.

Doe 1 v. U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, filed on February 17, 2025, and amended on February 24, 2025, was brought by civil servants in national security roles related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility and challenges their placement on leave pursuant to the Anti-DEI Orders under the First and Fifth Amendments as well as the Administrative Leave Act and Administrative Procedure Act.

National Urban League v. Trump, filed on February 19, 2025, was brought by the National Urban League, National Fair Housing Alliance, and AIDS Foundation of Chicago, and alleges that, because of the Anti-DEI Orders, Plaintiffs are at significant risk of losing federal funds. The suit claims that the Anti-DEI Orders, as well as the “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” Executive Order (the “Gender Order”), violate the First and Fifth Amendments as well as the Separation of Powers doctrine, Administrative Leave Act, and Administrative Procedure Act.

San Francisco Aids Foundation v. Trump, filed on February 20, 2025, challenges the Anti-DEI Orders and the Gender Order, and alleges that financial assistance to the organization and the people it serves is threatened as a result of the Orders. The suit asks the court to declare that all three Orders are unconstitutional in their entirety under the First and Fifth Amendments and the Separation of Powers doctrine.

Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump, filed on February 26, 2025, alleges that, as a result of the “Termination Provisions” of President Trump’s Anti-DEI Orders, multiple federal grant awards the organization previously received have been frozen. The suit alleges that the Termination Provisions of the Orders violate the First and Fifth Amendments as well as the U.S. Constitution’s Spending Clause and Separation of Powers doctrine.

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education v. McMahon, filed on March 3, 2025, challenges the cancelation of grants from the Department of Education through the Teacher Quality Partnership Program, the Supporting Effective Educator Development Program, and the Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program, based on the Anti-DEI Orders. The suit alleges not only that the cancelation violates the Administrative Procedure Act, but also that the reliance on the Anti-DEI Orders Termination Provisions violates the Judge Abelson’s February 21 order in NADOHE v. Trump.

All matters are currently engaging in briefing or awaiting ruling on Plaintiffs’ motions seeking preliminary and/or permanent injunctions.

7. Trump Directs EEOC to Investigate DEI Practices of Law Firms

On March 6, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order, “Addressing the Risks from Perkins Coie, LLP,” asserting that the law firm Perkins Coie has engaged in actions that undermine “democratic elections, the integrity of our courts, and honest law enforcement,” and that the firm racially discriminates against its own attorneys and staff, as well as applicants.

Despite its title, the Order is not limited to Perkins Coie, and directs the EEOC to review the practices of “large, influential, or industry leading” law firms for actions that the administration has determined are inconsistent with Title VII, including considering an individual’s minority status in reserving certain positions, promoting individuals, or providing access to clients, events, trainings, or travel.

In support of the allegations of discrimination specific to Perkins Coie, the Order cites the firm’s purported practice of using “percentage quotas” for hiring and promotion on the basis of race and other categories and the firm’s exclusion of applicants on the basis of race for its fellowships.

The Order directs the EEOC to work with the Attorney General to investigate any law firms identified as part of the EEOC’s review that do business with Federal entities and “take any additional actions the Attorney General deems appropriate in light of the evidence uncovered for violations of Title VII.”

Perkins Coie Specific Enforcement

The Order directs the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence to suspend any active security clearances held by individuals at Perkins Coie, and directs federal agencies to limit Perkins’ Coie employee access to Federal buildings and refrain from hiring individuals from the firm. The Order also directs the Office of Management and Budget to cease to provide any material or services “for the benefit of Perkins Coie” and to terminate contracts with Perkins Coie and any entities identified as doing business with Perkins Coie.   

Perkins Coie challenged sections 1, 3, and 5 of the Order, and on Thursday, March 12, 2024, Judge Beryl A. Howell in the District Court of the District of Columbia enjoined the administration from enforcing those provisions.  The injunction does not cover the parts of Trump’s order, directing agency heads to suspend security clearances for the firm’s lawyers and investigate “industry leading law firms” for racially discriminatory practices.

While this Executive Order is specific to law firms, if the Order is upheld, the same blueprint could be used to target other industries and firms that the administration determines violate Title VII, and direct federal agencies to cancel their contracts and the contracts of entities doing business with them. As such, the suit is being closely watched.