On February 20, 2025, several nonprofit organizations, including the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case, San Francisco AIDS Foundation v. Trump, challenges three executive orders issued by President Donald Trump in January 2025. These orders are:
- Executive Order 14151: “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing”
This order directs federal agencies to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, including trainings and programs designed to address systemic inequalities in the workplace.
- Executive Order 14168: “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”
This order attempts to restrict federal recognition of gender identities beyond the male/female binary, affecting how government agencies treat transgender and nonbinary individuals.
- Executive Order 14173: “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”
Framed as promoting “merit-based” hiring, this order calls for an end to affirmative action-type hiring practices and bars agencies from considering diversity as a factor in employment and contracting decisions.
Plaintiffs and Their Mission
The plaintiffs are mission-driven nonprofits specializing in healthcare, social services, and advocacy for the LGBTQ+ community and individuals affected by HIV/AIDS. These organizations receive federal funding to support their work in promoting health, wellness, and social justice for marginalized communities.
What the Lawsuit Argues
The lawsuit argues that the executive orders:
- Violate the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause: By limiting the organizations’ and employees’ free speech rights, particularly regarding their ability to discuss, promote, or participate in diversity and inclusion efforts.
- Violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause: By imposing vague and discriminatory policies without proper legal procedures.
- Violate the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause: By discriminating against specific groups, notably transgender individuals and LGBTQ+ communities.
- Violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA): By implementing significant policy changes without proper notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures.
Importantly, the lawsuit also argues that by punishing government contractors and grantees for continuing DEI programs, the orders illegally condition federal funding on the suppression of protected activities.
Why This Matters to Workers in California
While California maintains robust protections for LGBTQ+ individuals and DEI programs, these federal executive orders could have a chilling effect on organizations that rely on federal funding. The orders may:
- Jeopardize funding for DEI programs in workplaces and educational institutions.
- Undermine federal anti-discrimination guidance that employers rely on to build inclusive workplaces.
- Create confusion for employees and employers navigating conflicting federal and state standards.
Many employers—especially those with federal contracts—follow federal nondiscrimination and DEI guidance. If DEI programs are defunded or deemed “illegal,” private employers may feel pressure to scale back their own efforts.
What Employees in California Should Know
- California’s workplace protections remain intact. State law still prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and HIV status.
- Employers are still free to offer DEI programs. Nothing in federal law currently prohibits private California employers from continuing DEI efforts—though some may face political or funding pressure.
- Employees facing retaliation or discrimination related to LGBTQ+ status or participation in DEI programs should seek legal advice. These rights are still enforceable under both state and (as of now) federal law.
Current Status and Next Steps
The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to block the enforcement of the executive orders. A motion hearing for a preliminary injunction is set for May 22, 2025. The outcome of this case could set significant legal precedents regarding executive power and civil rights protections.
As the case moves forward, it will be one to watch closely—especially for employees, nonprofit organizations, and companies navigating complex legal obligations around diversity, equity, and inclusion.
