President Donald Trump, left, speaks as Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. listens during a Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission Event in the East Room of the White House, Thursday, May 22, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin).
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is imploring a federal judge to enforce a recent court order that bars the government from penalizing early childhood development programs.
In the underlying litigation, the plaintiffs sued Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and several other named defendants, over efforts to coerce state Head Start agencies into aligning with the Trump administration's efforts to root out diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) initiatives.
In January, U.S. District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez, a George W. Bush appointee, issued a preliminary injunction that forbade the defendants from "[p]ausing, freezing, impeding, blocking, canceling, terminating, delaying, withholding, or conditioning any grants or obligations to Head Start agencies for any reasons other than those specifically enumerated by the Head Start Act or its implementing regulations." The injunction also expressly blocked enforcing anti-DEIA certifications, or otherwise going after Head Start for such purposes.
Now, in a 13-page motion to enforce, the plaintiffs say the Trump administration is outright violating the injunction.
"The Government has failed to comply with the Order by (1) continuing to require Head Start agencies to certify compliance with the DEIA Ban, and (2) providing substantively flawed notice to Head Start agencies regarding the Order," the motion begins. "Defendants' noncompliance is causing confusion among Head Start agencies and impacting their current activities and decision making, undermining the Court's Order. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enforce its Order."
The plaintiffs say HHS continues to include anti-DEIA certification requirements in award notices sent to Head Start agencies.
In other words, when agencies are offered funding from the Trump administration, the agencies are still being told they must certify they align with the government's anti-DEIA priorities.
Specifically, Head Start agencies are being told they must certify that they are "compliant with" the "requirements set forth in Presidential Executive Order 14168 titled Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government." The language goes on to threaten civil and criminal liability for non-compliance, the motion explains.
The motion also points to a since-taken-down website that the plaintiffs allege "falsely tells Head Start agencies that Defendants will enforce the DEIA related certifications and restrictions, which is also expressly prohibited by this court's Order."
In a footnote and later on in the motion, the plaintiffs say the government did update some online content at their behest after "meet and confer" efforts, via several emails, in mid-January — but that this is not sufficient "because many Head Start agencies will never see the information Defendants have posted to a particular website regarding the Order."
The motion goes on to argue that remedial efforts by HHS have been "confusing and misleading" and less than sufficient due to the conflicting information being provided by the government.
In a more formalistic complaint, the motion says the defendants have failed to file a comprehensive remedial document as required.
"Defendants here have violated the express language and clear objectives of the Court's Order by continuing to require Head Start agencies to certify compliance with the DEIA Ban, failing to provide adequate notice to Head Start agencies regarding the Order, and failing to file a copy of the notice provided to Head Start agencies with the Court," the motion continues. "Defendants' noncompliance has caused confusion among Head Start agencies and has an ongoing chilling effect on Head Start agencies' ability to engage in lawful actions that could be considered to promote 'DEIA,' undermining the purpose of the Court's Order."
The plaintiffs also say they received a less-than-availing excuse when pressing HHS to account for, and correct, the continued use of anti-DEIA language in its general guidance about grant issuance.
From the motion, at length:
In response to Plaintiffs' requests, Defense counsel said that they would not change this certification requirement because the Grants Policy Statement is an "agency-wide document," but that is irrelevant to Defendants' compliance with the Court order because the agency—the Department of Health and Human Services—is a defendant in this lawsuit, and the Order applies to all Defendants. Further, Defendant HHS has changed the Grants Policy Statement several times in the last year alone, demonstrating that HHS regularly modifies the Grants Policy Statement language and that it is feasible for HHS to do so to comply with the Order.
The ACLU says the government needs to send "all Head Start agencies" an explicit notice correcting an earlier, confusing email.
The motion further asks the judge to force the government to remove anti-DEIA certifications that are still attached to award notices and HHS's overarching policy statement for grants.
The plaintiffs end their motion by suggesting accountability conditions in the form of a progress report due within 24 hours "that includes a statement of all actions the Defendants have taken since January 6, 2026, to comply with the Court's Order and a copy of the revised notice sent to Head Start agencies informing them of the Order."
"Defendants are violating the Court's Order because they continue to require a DEIA Certification, have provided an insufficient and misleading notice to Head Start agencies about the Order, and failed to file a copy of the notice provided to Head Start agencies with the Court. Because Defendants have been unwilling to remedy these deficiencies through the meet and confer process, Plaintiffs request that the Court issue an order enforcing the Order," the motion concludes.
Comments