ACLU Comment on Department of Education’s Dismantling of Core Civil Rights and Education Offices – American Civil Liberties Union

Judicial Injunction Upholds Sustainable Development Goals in New Hampshire Education

Executive Summary

A federal court in New Hampshire has issued a preliminary injunction, blocking a state law that targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in K-12 public schools and universities. The court’s decision aligns with several key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The ruling found the state law to be unconstitutionally vague and in direct conflict with federal civil rights legislation, thereby protecting equitable educational opportunities for all students.

Background of the Contested Legislation

The New Hampshire law, which became effective on July 1, 2025, was designed to ban educational programs and instruction related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. The prohibitions specifically pertained to concepts involving:

• Race
• Gender
• Sexual Orientation
• Gender Identity
• Disability

Legal challenges argued that the law violated constitutional rights and federal statutes designed to protect vulnerable student populations.

Key Judicial Findings and Alignment with SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The court’s ruling represents a critical function of a just and strong institution (SDG 16) by enforcing non-discriminatory laws and policies (Target 16.b). The injunction was granted based on the following key findings:

• Violation of Due Process: The court determined that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their claim that the law is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous, violating due process under the United States and New Hampshire Constitutions.
• Arbitrary Enforcement: The judicial order noted that the law’s inconsistent application permits and encourages arbitrary enforcement based on subjective preferences, undermining the principle of equal justice.
• Conflict with Federal Law: The court held that the state law is contradicted by, and therefore unconstitutional in relation to, federal disability civil rights laws.

Impact on SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

The injunction directly supports the advancement of SDG 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education, and SDG 10, which calls for the reduction of inequality. The court found that the state law created an impossible conflict for educational institutions attempting to comply with both state and federal mandates.

1. Protecting Vulnerable Students (Target 4.5 & 10.2): The ruling safeguards legally required programs that ensure equal access to education for students with disabilities, LGBTQ+ students, students of color, and female students. The court explicitly noted that the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) “requires conduct that the anti-DEI laws forbid.”
2. Promoting Inclusive Learning Environments (Target 4.7): By blocking the law, the court allows educators to continue fostering inclusive environments and teaching skills necessary for students to thrive in a diverse global society. This includes providing training on creating environments of inclusion and belonging, which contributes to a culture of peace and appreciation for cultural diversity.
3. Eliminating Discriminatory Policies (Target 10.3): The judicial action serves to eliminate a discriminatory state law that would have increased inequalities of outcome for marginalized student groups.

Stakeholder Perspectives on Advancing Educational Equity

The legal challenge was initiated by a broad coalition of educators, school districts, and civil rights organizations. Their statements underscore the importance of the court’s decision in upholding principles central to the SDGs.

• National Education Association – New Hampshire (NEA-NH): Emphasized that every student deserves access to education in a safe, inclusive, and supportive environment, and that the law sought to censor educators’ ability to meet the needs of all students, particularly those requiring special education services.
• ACLU of New Hampshire: Stated that the victory ensures all students in the state have equitable pathways to learn and thrive and that educators are not restricted by vague, unconstitutional laws.
• Plaintiff School Districts (Oyster River, Dover, Somersworth, Grantham): Voiced concerns that the law’s vague language created a chilling effect on educational programming and risked the arbitrary loss of funding, hindering their mission to provide inclusive and equitable education as mandated by federal and state law.
• New Hampshire Outright & GLAD Law: Highlighted that the decision protects the ability of schools to provide safe environments for LGBTQ+ youth and ensures that educational institutions can work to provide equal educational opportunities for all students.

Case Details

• Court Case: National Education Association – New Hampshire v. Formella
• Affiliate: New Hampshire

SDGs Addressed in the Article

SDG 4: Quality Education

• The article is centered on the educational system in New Hampshire, specifically K-12 public schools and universities. It discusses the right to an “inclusive education” and ensuring that “every student in New Hampshire deserves access to a high-quality public education in a safe, inclusive, and supportive environment.” The legal challenge aims to protect educational practices that cater to the diverse needs of all students.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• The core of the article addresses a state law described as “anti-equity, anti-inclusion, and anti-diversity.” This law targets programs designed to reduce inequalities for groups based on “race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability.” The legal action and the court’s injunction are direct efforts to combat discriminatory policies and promote equality within the education system.

SDG 5: Gender Equality

• The New Hampshire law explicitly bans diversity, equity, and inclusion programs pertaining to “gender, sexual orientation, [and] gender identity.” The article notes that the law wrongfully prohibits “efforts to provide equal educational opportunity for female students, LGBTQ students.” The court’s decision to block the law is a direct action in support of gender equality and the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals in educational settings.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• The article details a legal process where the judicial system (a strong institution) is used to challenge and block a state law. The court’s ruling is based on principles of justice, finding the law “violates due process” and is “unlawfully vague and ambiguous.” This highlights the role of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law and ensuring “equal access to justice” for those affected by discriminatory legislation.

Specific SDG Targets Identified

Targets for SDG 4 (Quality Education)

1. Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations.

   • The article directly relates to this target by focusing on a law that affects educational access and inclusion for students based on “race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability.” The court’s decision protects programs aimed at ensuring students with disabilities receive the support they are “guaranteed under federal and state law” and that LGBTQ+ youth can access “safe school and community environments.”

2. Target 4.7: By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for… human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity…

   • The DEI programs being defended are described as helping students “learn to navigate differences respectfully—a practical skill in our diverse world” and preparing them to “thrive in a diverse, global world by honoring each other, valuing uniqueness, [and] encouraging empathy.” This aligns with the goal of education for cultural diversity, human rights, and gender equality.

Targets for SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

1. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.

   • The DEI programs discussed in the article are designed to foster an “inclusive environment where all our students – including those with disabilities and from diverse backgrounds – receive the support and education they are guaranteed.” The legal fight is to protect these efforts that directly promote the social and educational inclusion of all students, irrespective of their background.

2. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices…

   • The article is a clear example of action against a discriminatory law. The court’s “preliminary injunction blocking” the law is a direct measure to eliminate a policy that would create unequal opportunities. The court noted the law contradicts federal disability laws that require “classifying students based on disability in order to improve outcomes for students with disabilities,” directly addressing the need to reduce inequalities of outcome.

Targets for SDG 5 (Gender Equality)

1. Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.

   • The law is identified as discriminatory, and its blocking is a step toward ending discrimination within the state’s educational institutions. The article explicitly states the law “wrongfully prohibit[s] efforts to provide equal educational opportunity for female students, LGBTQ students,” linking the legal action directly to combating gender-based discrimination.

2. Target 5.c: Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality…

   • The legal challenge reinforces existing federal civil rights laws over a contradictory state law. The court’s injunction acts to strengthen and enforce non-discriminatory policies, ensuring that protections for gender equality and LGBTQ+ rights are upheld in the education sector.

Targets for SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

1. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and local levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

   • The entire article describes the use of the legal system to challenge a state law. The court’s finding that the law “violates due process” and is “unlawfully vague and ambiguous” is a direct application of the rule of law. The lawsuit itself, brought by a coalition of unions, school districts, and individuals, demonstrates an effort to ensure equal access to justice.

2. Target 16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.

   • The court’s injunction is a direct enforcement of non-discriminatory principles over a discriminatory state law. The article highlights the conflict between the state’s “anti-DEI” law and federal disability civil rights laws, with the court’s action enforcing the latter. This represents a clear effort to enforce non-discriminatory policies.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

Indicators for SDG 4 (Quality Education)

• Existence of policies and programs for inclusive education: The article implies this indicator through its discussion of “diversity, equity, and inclusion programs,” “training programs,” and district commitments to “individualized, inclusive, and equitable education.” The fight to protect these programs is a measure of commitment to inclusive education.

Indicators for SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

• Number of discriminatory laws and policies repealed or amended: The primary indicator mentioned in the article is the “preliminary injunction blocking” the New Hampshire state law. This is a concrete, measurable action taken to eliminate a discriminatory law, as called for in Target 10.3.

Indicators for SDG 5 (Gender Equality)

• Existence of a legal framework to promote, enforce and monitor equality and non‑discrimination on the basis of sex: The court’s order serves as an indicator of a functional legal framework that can block discriminatory state laws. The injunction enforces federal protections and constitutional principles of due process against a law targeting programs related to gender and sexual orientation.

Indicators for SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

• Existence of independent national human rights institutions in compliance with the Paris Principles: While not a national institution, the federal court acts as a strong, independent judicial body. The issuance of the “preliminary injunction” based on constitutional principles (“due process”) is a direct indicator of an effective institution upholding justice and the rule of law.

Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: aclu.org