The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must stop requiring that grant applications not include terms related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), including the term “pregnant people,” under a new order from a federal judge.
U.S. District Judge Ricardo Martinez, based in Seattle, said in the Jan. 5 ruling that plaintiffs in the case provided examples of harm related to instructions on grant applications from HHS. He ordered the government to stop enforcing a requirement that applicants certify they would not “operate any programs that advance or promote DEI … or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws,” as well as other agency-wide directives implementing a ban on DEI-related terms in applications.
They are also enjoined from firing any more Office of Head Start employees and closing regional offices.
HHS has said it does not comment on litigation.
The decision “ensures that Head Start providers can provide early education to children from diverse communities and backgrounds without the constant threat of being punished simply for following the requirements of the law,” Jennie Mauer, executive director of the Wisconsin Head Start Association, said in a statement.
Head Start is a federally funded program that provides care across some 17,711 centers to about 750,000 children from low-income families.
The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union over several actions taken by HHS in response to President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20, 2025, executive order banning “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility“ and the “indoctrination of gender ideology.”
HHS, in an updated policy on grants, required applicants to certify they would not operate programs that advance DEI or discriminatory ideology.
According to court filings, HHS later returned applications with instructions to remove certain terms, including the terms “pregnant people,” “chestfeeding,” and “diversity.”
HHS also said that a Head Start center on an American Indian reservation in Washington state should remove eligibility criteria, which prioritized children from Indian families.
“Based on these instructions from the Office of Head Start, the program does not know what criteria it is supposed to use to determine enrollment for the program going forward,” Joel Ryan, executive director of the Washington State Association of Head Start and Early Childhood Assistance and Education Program, said in a filing.
The defendants told Martinez that they withdrew the certification requirement, making that challenge moot, and that plaintiffs had not shown the requirement, the mandated removal of DEI terms, and layoffs at the Office of Head Start caused the plaintiffs harm.
The judge disagreed, pointing to the declarations from operators of Head Start programs.
“Beyond Defendants’ bold assertion that the mass cuts are cost efficient, Defendants have provided no rational basis for these actions and have shown no consideration for how these cuts and confusing policy changes have frustrated or made it impossible for Plaintiffs to function as they are statutorily required,” the judge said.
He said he concluded plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the actions were arbitrary and capricious, in violation of federal law, and entered the preliminary injunction as the case proceeds.
Tell that seattle judge, to go SWIVLE…