- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Judge declines to block parts of Trump gender, DEI executive orders
Posted on 5/2/25 at 9:41 am
Posted on 5/2/25 at 9:41 am
A federal judge on Friday declined to block the enforcement of key provisions in President Trump’s executive orders involving diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and gender in a challenge by three civil and human rights organizations.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly denied the advocacy groups’ request for a preliminary injunction, which would have prohibited the Trump administration from implementing parts of three executive orders against the challengers.
The judge said they failed to establish standing for half of the challenged provisions, and on the other provisions, their constitutional claims “falter for various reasons.”
“The motion before the Court is not about whether DEI policies, however defined in a given context, are good public policy. Nor is it about whether specific DEI initiatives comply with antidiscrimination law,” Kelly wrote in a 58-page order. “Instead, it is about whether Plaintiffs have shown that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the executive orders at issue.
“Because they are not likely to prevail on the merits, the Court will deny the motion,” he said.
LINK
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly denied the advocacy groups’ request for a preliminary injunction, which would have prohibited the Trump administration from implementing parts of three executive orders against the challengers.
The judge said they failed to establish standing for half of the challenged provisions, and on the other provisions, their constitutional claims “falter for various reasons.”
“The motion before the Court is not about whether DEI policies, however defined in a given context, are good public policy. Nor is it about whether specific DEI initiatives comply with antidiscrimination law,” Kelly wrote in a 58-page order. “Instead, it is about whether Plaintiffs have shown that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the executive orders at issue.
“Because they are not likely to prevail on the merits, the Court will deny the motion,” he said.
LINK
Posted on 5/2/25 at 9:43 am to Jbird
quote:
On June 7, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Kelly to serve as a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,
Posted on 5/2/25 at 9:46 am to Jbird
At this rate you don’t need a president just let judges run the country time is getting close for these judges to be handed out some shite Trump don’t want to do. Buts it is coming
Posted on 5/2/25 at 9:47 am to bhtigerfan
Donya Khadem, a lawyer for the groups, said during a hearing in March that the breadth of the orders has made it challenging to know how to comply. She pointed to the president’s executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”
“Does that mean they can’t say transgender people exist?” she asked, suggesting that “even minimal loss” of First Amendment freedom amounts to irreparable harm.
But Kelly, the judge, pushed back and noted the challenge of creating a “bright line” rule as to when conditions on government funding become unconstitutional.
“Why isn’t the president permitted to have his or her policy priorities?” he asked.
Khadem said there are “constitutional limits” to how a president can implement their policy agenda, calling Trump’s perspective that DEI is “un-American” amounts to viewpoint discrimination.
“Does that mean they can’t say transgender people exist?” she asked, suggesting that “even minimal loss” of First Amendment freedom amounts to irreparable harm.
But Kelly, the judge, pushed back and noted the challenge of creating a “bright line” rule as to when conditions on government funding become unconstitutional.
“Why isn’t the president permitted to have his or her policy priorities?” he asked.
Khadem said there are “constitutional limits” to how a president can implement their policy agenda, calling Trump’s perspective that DEI is “un-American” amounts to viewpoint discrimination.
Posted on 5/2/25 at 9:59 am to Jbird
Trump needs to fill every possible judicial seat.
Following are the number of Article III federal judges serving in the federal judiciary as of May 2, 2025, organized by the president who appointed them.
According to U.S. Courts, there are 44 current Article III vacancies in the federal judiciary of 870 total Article III judgeships. Including non-Article III judges from the United States Court of Federal Claims and the United States territorial courts, there are 45 vacancies out of 890 active federal judicial positions.
Following are the number of Article III federal judges serving in the federal judiciary as of May 2, 2025, organized by the president who appointed them.
quote:
Appointed by Democrat presidents:
Joe Biden: 236
Barack Obama: 239
Bill Clinton: 30
Jimmy Carter: 0
Appointed by Republican presidents:
Donald Trump: 238
George W. Bush: 113
George H.W. Bush: 10
Ronald Reagan: 11
Gerald Ford: 0
According to U.S. Courts, there are 44 current Article III vacancies in the federal judiciary of 870 total Article III judgeships. Including non-Article III judges from the United States Court of Federal Claims and the United States territorial courts, there are 45 vacancies out of 890 active federal judicial positions.
This post was edited on 5/2/25 at 10:02 am
Posted on 5/2/25 at 10:22 am to Jbird
Found a judge who isn't willing to destroy the credibility of the judicial branch.
Posted on 5/2/25 at 12:47 pm to Jbird
quote:
She pointed to the president’s executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”
“Does that mean they can’t say transgender people exist?” she asked
This is why I hate lawyers. Their unwillingness to use common sense makes them say stupid things.
Posted on 5/2/25 at 12:56 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
This is why I hate lawyers. Their unwillingness to use common sense makes them say stupid things.
One in particular shows off this skill every day on this site.
Popular
Back to top
4







