Four former federal employees have filed the first major legal challenge to President Donald Trump’s orders eliminating federal Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs and challenges whether a president can lawfully remove career civil servants based on perceived ideology or past equity-related duties.
The complaint, filed on December 3, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and has been assigned to Judge Tanya Chutkan, who has previously presided over high-profile cases involving Trump.
Newsweek contacted attorneys for the plaintiffs and DOJ for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Monday.
Why It Matters
The lawsuit marks the first major legal challenge to President Donald Trump’s executive orders dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion programs across the federal government, raising fundamental questions about whether a president can target career civil servants based on perceived ideology or past equity-related work.
With potentially thousands of employees affected, the case tests the limits of executive power, the constitutional protections against viewpoint discrimination, and the core civil-service principle that government jobs should be insulated from partisan retribution.
What To Know
The class-action lawsuit Fell et al. v. Trump et al alleges that President Donald Trump’s January 2025 executive orders targeting DEI initiatives resulted in unlawful terminations across multiple federal agencies.
The plaintiffs—Stephanie Fell, Stephanie Gilliard, L.L. Smith and Mahri Stainnak—contend they were removed from their positions after the administration ordered agencies to “eliminate all DEIA offices and positions” pursuant to Executive Orders 14151 and 14173.
“Firing non-partisan federal workers for their perceived political beliefs…not only strips the federal government of skilled, competent professionals, but also tramples on those employees’ constitutional and statutory rights,” the complaint states.
The four plaintiffs worked in a range of roles: civil-rights compliance at the Department of Homeland Security, policy coordination at the Department of Justice, program operations at the National Institutes of Health and talent management at the Office of Personnel Management.
None, they argue, held formal positions in DEI offices at the time of termination.
All allege they were identified for removal because of prior work associated with equity or civil-rights functions.
Reuters, which first reported on the lawsuit, noted that the complaint claims Trump’s executive orders “violated thousands of workers’ rights to free speech and association” and disproportionately affected “people of color, women and non-binary people.”
The plaintiffs’ lawyers further argue that “mass firings…violated federal civil service law because they targeted individual employees rather than eliminating specific positions entirely.”
The lawsuit seeks reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.
It also asks the court to certify a class of all federal employees terminated under the administration’s anti-DEI directives, a group the plaintiffs say could encompass thousands of workers.
Trump’s executive orders directed federal agencies, contractors and grant recipients to eliminate DEI programs and review past equal-employment and civil-rights directives dating back decades. Supporters of the orders argue that DEI initiatives constitute “illegal discrimination” and compromise merit-based hiring.
Critics, including civil-rights organizations, say they dismantle long-standing safeguards designed to ensure equal opportunity in federal employment.
The Stakes For The Federal Workforce
The case will test the scope of presidential authority over the civil service, particularly regarding political considerations in federal employment decisions. It also raises questions about how broadly agencies interpreted the term “DEI” during reorganization efforts and whether employees without formal DEI roles were swept into compliance measures.
As the lawsuit moves forward, Judge Chutkan will be asked to weigh whether the plaintiffs’ terminations were lawful exercises of executive authority or, as the complaint alleges, part of a discriminatory and politically motivated purge.
What People Are Saying
Smith and Mahri Stainnak’s lawyers (via the MSPB complaint, echoed in the federal suit) said: “This administration was not attempting to reset priorities but to punish those it perceived supported its political opponents.”
Scott Michelman, legal director of the ACLU of D.C. said: “President Trump can’t drag us back to a dark chapter in history where the government targeted people simply for their views or values.”
A White House statement defending the policy: “Protecting the civil rights and expanding opportunities for all Americans is a key priority of the Trump Administration, which is why he took decisive actions to terminate unlawful DEI preferences in the federal government.”
What Happens Next
The Justice Department is expected to respond—most likely by moving to dismiss the case—while plaintiffs may seek a preliminary injunction to halt any further DEI-related terminations.
Judge Tanya Chutkan will set the case schedule, including deadlines for class-certification briefing, a critical stage because the plaintiffs aim to represent thousands of affected workers.
If the case survives early motions, discovery could require multiple agencies to produce internal communications and RIF documentation, potentially revealing how the executive orders were implemented.
Major rulings on an injunction or class certification could prompt appeals to the D.C. Circuit, extending the timeline.
Ultimately, the case may establish significant precedent on the scope of presidential authority over the civil service and whether federal employees are protected from viewpoint-based or politically motivated removals.
