A federal judge in New Hampshire has temporarily blocked a state law targeting diversity, equity and inclusion programs in public schools.
The ruling issued Thursday by U.S. District Court judge Landya McCafferty of New Hampshire sets a two-week restraining order against a portion of the law while she weighs whether to issue a permanent injunction ahead of a trial. The decision means that school districts that are parties to the lawsuit don’t have to report any DEI initiatives to the state by a Friday deadline.
In granting the temporary restraining order, McCafferty cited the state’s unilateral decision to change the deadline for complying with the new restrictions by Sept. 5, not Sept. 30, as required by the law, saying schools faced “crippling penalties” for “even unknowing noncompliance with the anti-DEI laws.”
The ruling comes in response to a legal challenge filed in August by the New Hampshire chapter of the National Education Association and several school districts, claiming the state’s “vague and ambiguous” restrictions violate federal civil rights laws that protect the rights of students with disabilities, and the First Amendment rights of educators and students.
A provision tucked into the two-year $15.9 billion state budget, signed by Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte in June, sets limits on DEI mandates in state government, public higher education and K-12 schools.
The rules apply to municipalities and school districts, which must submit reports to the state by Sept. 30 identifying any DEI contracts. Under the restrictions, schools that don’t comply or refuse to dismantle DEI programs could lose state funding.
“No public entity shall implement, promote, or otherwise engage in any DEl-related initiatives, programs, training, or policies,” the provision states. “No state funds shall be expended for DEl-related activities, including but not limited to implicit bias training, DEI assessments, critical race theory or race-based hiring, promotion, or contracting preferences.”
New Hampshire is one of several states that have taken steps to ban or restrict DEI programs in public schools, colleges and universities in response to President Donald Trump’s executive order in January threatening to withhold funding from schools. Backers of the new rules said they are necessary to prevent a loss of federal funding for not complying with Trump’s order.
But teachers unions and advocacy groups behind the lawsuit claim the policies help institutions serve diverse populations and address systemic inequality in government and public schools. They’ve accused the Trump administration of discrimination for seeking to eliminate DEI initiatives.
“Every Granite State student deserves a high-quality public education in a safe, inclusive, and supportive environment,” NEA-NH President Megan Tuttle said in a statement Thursday. “Programs and initiatives, including classroom instruction, that recognize the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion are not only essential to fostering a sense of belonging for all students, they are also legally required in many cases.”
Top Republicans who helped push the law through the Legislature blasted the ruling as “judicial overreach” and predicted that the state would ultimately prevail against the legal challenge.
“New Hampshire taxpayers, not unelected activist judges, get to decide how their hard-earned dollars are spent,” House Deputy Majority Leader Joe Sweeney, a Salem Republican, said in a statement. “This temporary stay from a handpicked federal judge is nothing more than judicial overreach, an attempt to legislate from the bench and force political ideology into our public institutions.”
