A district court handed the Trump administration another victory on Friday, overturning an injunction that had previously blocked its effort to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

On February 1, President Trump dismissed CFPB Director Rohit Chopra, a Biden appointee. Acting Director Russell Vought subsequently ordered staff to cease all operations and close the agency’s headquarters. The move prompted a lawsuit from the National Treasury Employees Union, representing most CFPB employees, along with other plaintiffs.

In late March, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued a preliminary injunction halting the Trump administration’s actions, the Daily Wire reported.

“After briefly narrowing the scope of Jackson’s injunction, the DC Circuit panel reinstated the order shortly after the CFPB attempted a drastic reduction-in-force plan meant to slash the majority of the agency’s headcount,” Bloomberg News reported. “Lawyers for the Trump administration argued Jackson’s injunction was an overly broad encroachment on a federal agency’s efforts to downsize in accordance with the president’s policy directives.”

But on Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated Judge Jackson’s preliminary injunction.

Created in 2010 under the Dodd-Frank Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is funded by the Federal Reserve and has operated outside congressional oversight, with its budget not subject to approval by lawmakers — a distinction unique among federal agencies.

In 2015, Investor’s Business Daily accused the CFPB of “diverting potentially millions of dollars in settlement payments for alleged victims of lending bias to a slush fund for poverty groups tied to the Democratic Party” and planning to “create a so-called Civil Penalty Fund for its own shakedown operations targeting financial institutions.”

In October 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated that the CFPB’s “perpetual insulation from Congress’ appropriations power, including the express exemption from congressional review of its funding, renders the Bureau ‘no longer dependent, and as a result, no longer accountable’ to the Congress and ultimately, to the people.”

Another federal court this week has also handed the administration a win.

In a major victory for parents, a federal judge rejected an effort by left-wing professors and students to overturn Alabama’s law restricting divisive diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in public schools and universities.

U.S. District Judge David Proctor ruled that a group of University of Alabama professors and students challenging the measure failed to justify a preliminary injunction, leaving the law in effect as the case proceeds.

Enacted last October, the law bans schools from hosting or funding DEI programs that advance radical agendas and targets so-called “divisive concepts,” such as compelling students to feel guilt or responsibility for historical injustices based on their race or ethnicity — for instance, blaming all white Americans for slavery.

Proctor ruled that the law doesn’t stifle free speech or academic freedom, so professors can still broach these topics in class, as long as it’s done “in an objective manner without endorsement.”

For instance, he noted in his ruling that a teacher would not violate the law if they presented empirical evidence suggesting racism as a possible factor in health disparities, or if they discussed it strictly as a theory.

“If, alternatively, the theory she teaches about is that there is empirical evidence that racism may be a cause for health disparities, or if she frames such teaching as merely a theory, she would not violate SB 129,” the judge wrote in his decision.

The plaintiffs relied heavily on the argument that the law violated their rights to free speech and expression. Proctor rejected the argument, finding the challengers had not met the high standard required to pause enforcement while the case proceeds.

His decision comes amid a broader pushback against DEI programs, with states like Florida and Texas at the forefront of efforts to eliminate what critics call taxpayer-funded propaganda in education.