Florida and Texas AGs Issue Sweeping Anti-DEI Opinions on MLK Day
•February 11, 2026
0
Why It Matters
The rulings expose employers in Florida and Texas to heightened legal exposure and compel a reassessment of DEI strategies, reshaping compliance priorities across public and private sectors.
Key Takeaways
- •AG opinions invoke strict scrutiny on DEI.
- •Texas opinion targets private‑sector DEI practices.
- •Florida bans race‑based hiring goals in state contracts.
- •Potential Title VII, Section 1981 liability for DEI metrics.
- •Employers face heightened litigation risk in FL and TX.
Pulse Analysis
The latest attorney‑general opinions from Florida and Texas illustrate a growing state‑level backlash against DEI initiatives, building on the Supreme Court’s 2023 Students for Fair Admissions decision. By framing race‑conscious programs as subject to strict scrutiny, the opinions argue that most existing affirmative‑action statutes and contracting goals cannot survive constitutional review. Texas goes further, enumerating private‑sector practices—demographic hiring quotas, diverse‑slate interview panels, DEI‑tied compensation, and supplier‑diversity targets—that could trigger Title VII, Texas Human Rights, or Section 1981 claims. This expansive view reflects a broader national trend where state officials leverage legal opinions to shape corporate behavior without formal legislation.
For businesses, the practical impact is immediate. Public‑sector contractors in Florida must reassess compliance with statutes that mandate racial spending goals or board‑level minority quotas, while Texas‑based firms need to audit private‑sector DEI policies for elements that could be construed as discriminatory. Companies should scrutinize compensation formulas, promotion criteria, and fellowship programs that tie benefits to demographic metrics, as these may now be deemed unlawful under the new guidance. Moreover, the Texas opinion warns that mandatory DEI training that forces ideological affirmation could create hostile‑work‑environment liability, adding another layer of risk for HR departments.
Strategically, organizations operating in or with ties to these states should conduct a comprehensive DEI risk assessment, isolate any practices flagged by the opinions, and consider restructuring programs to focus on merit‑based criteria while still promoting inclusion through neutral means. Monitoring ongoing litigation and potential follow‑up opinions from other state attorneys general will be essential, as the legal landscape continues to evolve. Proactive adjustments not only mitigate litigation risk but also position firms to navigate the shifting regulatory environment with greater confidence.
Florida and Texas AGs Issue Sweeping Anti-DEI Opinions on MLK Day
Florida and Texas AGs Issue Sweeping Anti‑DEI Opinions on MLK Day
by T. Scott Kelly, Cameron W. Ellis, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Wednesday, February 11, 2026
On January 19, 2026, the federal holiday celebrating Martin Luther King Jr., Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued coordinated opinions declaring that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs violate federal and state constitutional guarantees of equal protection. Though they lack the force of law, the opinions target both public‑sector programs and private‑sector employment practices, signaling an aggressive new enforcement posture against race‑ and sex‑conscious initiatives in two of the nation’s largest states.
Quick Hits
-
Relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s June 2023 Students for Fair Admissions decision, the attorneys general assert that strict scrutiny applies to all race‑based government action and that most DEI programs cannot survive that standard.
-
The Texas opinion identifies specific private‑sector DEI practices—including “diverse slate” policies, demographic hiring goals, DEI‑linked compensation, and restricted fellowship or other pipeline‑type programs—as potential violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, and Section 1981.
-
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has announced that his office “will not defend or enforce” state laws requiring race‑based classifications, preferences, or quotas in government employment and contracting.
The Florida Attorney General’s Opinion
The Florida opinion focuses exclusively on public‑sector, race‑conscious programs, concluding that state laws mandating race‑based discrimination are unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Florida Constitution. Attorney General Uthmeier identifies three categories of unlawful programs:
-
Affirmative Action in State Employment – Targets Section 110.112, Fla. Stat., which requires executive agencies to develop affirmative‑action plans with race‑based hiring goals. The opinion argues these classifications fail strict scrutiny because they do not address specific, identified past discrimination and lack durational limits.
-
Race‑Based Contracting Preferences – Section 287.09451, Fla. Stat., establishes specific racial “spending goals” for state contracts (e.g., 4 % for Black Americans in construction, 9 % for Hispanic Americans in architectural services, and 36 % for American women in contractual services). The opinion notes that a federal court has already found this statute unconstitutional.
-
Minority Representation Quotas – Identifies statutes requiring minimum minority representation on state boards and councils, such as the Florida Cancer Control and Research Advisory Council.
The opinion includes an appendix cataloguing dozens of additional statutes across state agencies that the Attorney General contends are unconstitutional.
The Texas Attorney General’s Opinion
The Texas opinion is substantially more expansive, spanning approximately seventy‑five pages and addressing both public and private sectors. Attorney General Paxton expressly overrules several prior attorney‑general opinions that had permitted race‑ and sex‑conscious programs.
Public Sector – Declares unconstitutional Texas’s Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) Program, which sets race‑ and sex‑based contracting benchmarks, as well as Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) programs that presume certain racial groups are “socially and economically disadvantaged.” The opinion also targets statutes requiring race and sex considerations in government appointments and state‑agency hiring.
Private Sector – Provides a detailed analysis of private‑sector liability exposure. While acknowledging that “the ‘mere existence’ of a DEI policy, in isolation, may not impose liability under Title VII,” it identifies the following practices as potentially violating Title VII, the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, or Section 1981:
-
Demographic workforce goals and quotas
-
Board diversity mandates
-
Diverse‑slate and interview‑panel requirements
-
Diversity fellowships and pipeline programs limited to specific demographics
-
Compensation and promotion criteria tied to DEI metrics
-
Supplier‑diversity programs with fixed numerical targets or spending commitments
The opinion also warns that DEI training programs requiring “compulsory affirmation of ideological positions or confessions of bias and privilege based on protected characteristics” may create hostile‑work‑environment liability. It considers “organized internal programs like employee resource groups, affinity groups, mentoring, and trainings” and states that it is “reasonable to conclude that private‑sector DEI initiatives that either mandate or practically result in known segregation would raise liability.” Beyond antidiscrimination laws, the opinion suggests public companies may face securities liability for failing to disclose risks associated with DEI initiatives.
Next Steps
While attorney‑general opinions do not have the force of law, they carry significant persuasive authority and signal enforcement priorities. These opinions arrive almost a year after the federal administration issued several executive orders targeting DEI programs and reflect a broader legal environment of increased scrutiny. Employers operating in Florida or Texas—or with employees, contractors, or business interests in those states—face a heightened risk of enforcement actions, litigation, and reputational exposure.
Organizations may wish to evaluate current DEI policies and practices against the specific concerns raised in these opinions, particularly programs involving demographic hiring goals, restricted fellowships or internships, diverse‑slate requirements, and DEI‑linked compensation. Government contractors should assess compliance with HUB, DBE, and minority‑business‑enterprise requirements, recognizing that the underlying frameworks may be subject to legal challenge.
Employers should also monitor whether other state attorneys general issue similar opinions, how federal agencies implement recent executive orders targeting DEI, and whether courts adopt the legal reasoning articulated in these opinions.
0
Comments
Want to join the conversation?
Loading comments...