Trump administration can enforce anti-DEI orders, appeals court rules
联邦上诉法院裁定：特朗普政府可强制执行反DEI（多元化、公平与包容）政策令
Dive Brief:
潜水简介：
A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the Trump administration can carry out executive orders for now that target diversity, equity and inclusion efforts at higher education institutions and elsewhere.
一家联邦上诉法院周五裁定，特朗普政府目前可执行针对高等教育机构及其他领域多样性、公平性和包容性努力的行政命令。
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ unanimous decision lifts a lower court’s preliminary injunction that had blocked major portions of two of President Donald Trump’s directives against diversity programs.
美国第四巡回上诉法院的一致裁定解除了初审法院的初步禁令，该禁令曾阻止特朗普总统的两项反多样性计划指令的重要部分。
Although the appeals court lifted the injunction, the three-judge panel did not determine the legality of the orders. The decision said the appeals court would set an expedited briefing schedule to consider the case.
尽管上诉法院解除了禁令，但由三名法官组成的小组并未确定命令的合法性 。 决定称，上诉法院将制定加快审理日程以考虑此案 。
Dive Insight:
潜水洞察：
The decision deals a major blow to the American Association of University Professors and the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, two of the plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit against the Trump administration. They allege that the two orders are unconstitutionally vague and chill speech that Trump opposes — arguments the lower court had said were likely to succeed.
这一决定对美国大学教授协会(American Association of University Professors)和全国高等教育多样性官员协会(National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education)是一个重大打击，这两个原告对特朗普政府提起诉讼。他们声称，这两项命令是特朗普反对的违宪的模糊和冰冷的言论——下级法院曾表示这些论点可能成功。
On the first day of his second term, Trump signed an order directing federal agencies to “terminate, to the maximum extent allowed by law” the government’s “equity-related” grants, However, the order doesn’t specify what qualifies as “equity-related.”
在他第二个任期的第一天，特朗普签署了一项命令，指示联邦机构“在法律允许的最大范围内终止”政府的“股权相关”拨款，不过，该命令没有具体说明什么符合“股权相关”的条件。
The next day, Trump signed an order seeking to end “illegal DEI.”
第二天，特朗普签署了一项旨在终止“非法DEI”的命令。
It tasked each federal agency with identifying up to nine “potential civil compliance investigations” over DEI programs at corporations, foundations, associations or colleges with endowments over $1 billion. It also requires recipients of grants to certify that they don’t promote any DEI programs that violate federal law.
它要求每个联邦机构针对捐赠基金超过10亿美元的公司、基金会、协会或大学的DEI计划，确定多达9项“潜在的民事合规调查”。它还要求接受资助的人保证他们不会再推广任何违反联邦法律的DEI项目。
But the lawsuit argues that that order did not define key terms, such as “DEI” or “illegal DEI."
但该诉讼指出，该命令未定义关键术语，如“DEI”或“非法DEI”。
“President Trump’s history and explicit call to dismantle anything connected to [diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility] presses the question of which ‘programs promoting DEI’ President Trump views as ‘illegal,’” it contends. “If lawful DEI programs are suddenly deemed unlawful by presidential fiat, Plaintiffs must either risk prosecution for making a false claim, or censor promotion of their values.”
“特朗普总统的历史和明确呼吁拆除任何与[多样性、公平、包容性和可及性]相关的东西，引发特朗普总统认为哪些‘促进DEI的项目’是‘非法的’的问题，”它声称。“如果合法的DEI项目突然被总统法令视为非法，原告必须冒着被起诉的风险提出错误的主张或是审查他们的价值观的推广。”
In late February, U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson, a Biden appointee, temporarily blocked those provisions. The Trump administration quickly appealed, arguing the preliminary injunction relied on a “fundamental misreading” of the orders.
2月下旬，拜登任命的美国地区法官亚当·艾贝尔森暂时阻止这些条款。特朗普政府迅速提起上诉，辩称初步禁令依赖于对命令的“根本误读”。
The administration asserted that government policies can only be unconstitutionally vague when they impose requirements on citizens — not when the president directs federal officers, either informally through conversations or through executive orders. It further argued that Trump’s executive orders were largely “instructions to his subordinates” and that each contained provisional language limiting their scope.
美国政府声称，只有当政府政策对公民提出要求时，才可能因违宪性模糊而被质疑，而总统对联邦官员下达指令（无论是通过对话非正式进行还是通过行政命令）则不受此限。政府进一步辩称，特朗普的行政命令大体上是“对其下属的指示”，且每项命令都包含限制其适用范围的临时性措辞。
For instance, the administration noted that the order directing agencies to identify potential colleges to investigate specified that this was part of a broader plan to root out DEI programs “that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences.”
例如，政府指出，指示机构确定潜在大学进行调查的命令规定，这是根除“构成非法歧视或偏好”的DEI项目的更广泛计划的一部分。
“All plaintiffs must do is comply with federal law itself — longstanding federal statutes that are not challenged on vagueness grounds or any other,” the Trump administration wrote in its motion to lift the injunction. “Any lack of clarity when DEI runs afoul of those statutes is not attributable to the Executive Order.”
特朗普政府在取消禁令的动议中写道:“所有原告必须做的就是遵守联邦法律本身——长期存在的联邦法规，不得以模糊或任何其他理由受到挑战。”"当DEI与这些法令发生冲突时，任何不明确的地方都不能归咎于行政命令."
Although the appeals court granted the administration’s request to lift the injunction, U.S. Circuit Judge Pamela Harris — an Obama appointee — pointed out in her concurring opinion that what the executive orders say and how the Trump administration enforces them “are two different things.”
尽管上诉法院批准了政府要求解除禁令的请求，但美国巡回法官帕米拉·哈里斯（奥巴马任命）在协同意见中指出，行政命令的表述及特朗普政府的执行方式是两码事。
“Agency enforcement actions that go beyond the Orders’ scope may well raise serious First Amendment and Due Process concerns,” Harris wrote.
哈里斯写道:“超出命令范围的机构执法行动很可能会引起严重的第一修正案和正当程序问题。”
