Judge, Rita F. Lin of Federal District Court in San Francisco embodying DEI integrity

I use the term, “DEI Integrity” to connote the importance of practicing inclusivity with fidelity to facts, reason, candor, and courage. We are facing bald-faced efforts to eviscerate inclusivity practices, to turn them inside out, to tar and feather them, to transmogrify them in ways that perhaps even Orwell might find unimaginable. We’ve been watching and waiting, taking deep breaths, shedding some tears, wondering if and when something might happen to turn the tide of the blatant rampant bigotry gushing out of the current administration. Well, maybe something significant just happened.

After reading the article, Judge Orders Trump Not to Threaten University of California’s Funding, I’m feeling more hopeful than people with significant power are making serious efforts to preserve and protect DEI integrity. The judge’s ruling is by far (as far as I’ve seen) the clearest, most full-throated, unequivocal and, it seems indisputable rebuke of the brash bullying of education by the Trump administration. 

To be clear, this is not to say I’m thinking now that the oppression is finally going to end. This ruling could be headed to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS has been on many occasions disposed to prop up harmful and nonsensical actions of the administration. What I’m feeling guardedly positive about is the test that this will represent, that someone stepped up to say what needed to be said, and that those of us without the power to make macro-level changes now have this to hope about and share with students, colleagues, and others who are struggling to understand what’s going on and what might happen next.

With that in mind, here’s an attempt at a bit of a summary of Judge Lin’s ruling against the Trump administration and its treatment of California’s university system. I hope it might be useful and maybe even encouraging.

What Judge Lin’s Ruling Means for Academic Freedom, Federal Funding & the Future of Higher Education

Glossary of Key Terms

First Amendment: Protects freedom of speech, inquiry, association, and academic expression. It prohibits the government from punishing or coercing public institutions because of their viewpoints or from conditioning public benefits on the surrender of those freedoms.

Tenth Amendment: Reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the federal government. It prevents the federal government from coercing states (such as public university systems) by threatening catastrophic losses of federal funds.

Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine: The government may not force a person or institution to give up constitutional rights in exchange for receiving a public benefit (such as research funding).

Viewpoint Discrimination: Government action that targets, punishes, or suppresses expression solely because of the viewpoint expressed. This is categorically forbidden.

Retaliation: Punishing or threatening someone because of protected speech. Public universities are fully protected against retaliation for research, curriculum, or viewpoints.

Coercive Spending: Federal threats to withhold funds so significant that a state institution has no real choice but to comply. This is barred by the Tenth Amendment.

Extortion: Obtaining tangible or intangible goods through wrongful use of official power or threats.

“Woke”: Not a meaningful legal or academic term. In political rhetoric, it is used derisively to disparage a wide, undefined range of perspectives associated with equity, anti-racism, or inclusion. Because of its vagueness, it cannot serve as a legitimate basis for government enforcement or conditions on funding. Using such an ill-defined term as an enforcement standard raises serious due-process problems (no one can know what is prohibited) and serious First Amendment problems (the term is used as shorthand for disfavored viewpoints). No university—or person—could know what it means to violate or satisfy such a standard. The Supreme Court requires that conditions on funding be clear, neutral, and constitutionally permissible. A nebulous insult fails every test.

I hope you haven’t been lured into using this term in any way that lends it legitimacy.

What Happened?

A federal judge issued a sweeping order blocking the Trump administration from:

1. Threatening to cut or withhold research funding from the University of California in order to force ideological changes.

2. Demanding over $1 billion in payments as part of a “settlement” whose purpose was to pressure UC to restrict teaching, research, or student admissions.

3. Conditioning funding on viewpoint-based demands, including:

·       Eliminating “left” or “woke” content

·       Restricting research on certain topics

·       Screening international students for “anti-Western” or “anti-American” views

·       “Socializing” students into administration-approved beliefs.

Her finding:This campaign violated both the First Amendment and the Tenth Amendment — and unlawfully chilled academic freedom.

Why the Ruling Is Strong

Judge Lin found undisputed evidence that federal officials were engaged in a systematic effort to “purge certain viewpoints” from universities. Faculty had already stopped teaching or researching topics out of fear.

She concluded:

• This is classic retaliation for protected speech.

• The conditions were blatantly viewpoint-based.

• The threats were coercive enough to trigger Tenth Amendment protections.

• Skipping required grant-termination procedures undermined every claim of legitimacy.

This is why the ruling is unusually clear and forceful: the evidence of unconstitutional conduct was unusually blatant and well-documented.

Can the Administration Continue the Same Behavior under a Different Name?

No, not legally. The government cannot pursue a campaign whose purpose or effect is to suppress disfavored viewpoints.

It can:

• Investigate genuine, specific civil-rights violations using viewpoint-neutral standards.

• Enforce anti-harassment requirements equally, consistently, and transparently.

• Require procedural compliance with civil-rights statutes.

It cannot:

• Use derision/insults (“woke”), ideological criteria, or political preferences as enforcement standards.

• Punish institutions for speech, curriculum, or research they dislike.

• Demand billion-dollar payments to secure ideological concessions.

• Condition funding on viewpoint suppression or political loyalty tests.

  
  

In short: There is no constitutional way to continue this campaign’s core objectives as currently articulated.

What Might Happen Next?

1. Appeal to the Ninth Circuit - the government has the right to appeal, but Judge Lin’s findings of fact, especially the explicit evidence of viewpoint-based retaliation, should be hard to reverse.

2. Possible Appeal to SCOTUS - given the explicitness of the administration’s own statements, SCOTUS would have to ignore or essentially rewrite major First Amendment doctrines to side with the administration.

Why This Ruling Is Historic

Judge Lin’s ruling stands out because:

• It directly rejects a coordinated, explicit viewpoint-purging campaign.

• It protects the academic freedom of a statewide university system.

• It clarifies that political pressure cannot override constitutional constraints.

• It provides institutions with a strong judicial precedent for resisting ideological coercion.

• It marks the first fully developed judicial opinion drawing together First Amendment retaliation, unconstitutional conditions, coercive spending, and violations of grant procedures in this context.

• It affirms in no uncertain terms that academic freedom is not a privilege universities “get to keep” only if the administration approves of their politics. It is a constitutional guarantee.

Take Heart?

As I wrote back in February, we have to stand firm against the forces of bigotry and lethal absurdity that threaten expansive DEI practices (with highly restrictive ones). I hope you’ll draw some clarity, strength, and maybe even hope from Judge Lin’s resolve to keep fighting for diversity, equity, and inclusivity.