A federal court in Rhode Island has blocked the Trump administration’s controversial changes to how $75 million in homeless assistance funding gets distributed, calling the policy shift unlawful.
Multiple nonprofit organizations took legal action last year, challenging the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s decision to alter requirements for the Continuum of Care Builds program. The organizations claimed HUD issued new funding guidelines primarily to advance the administration’s political agenda.
U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy, who was appointed by Trump himself, condemned what she called the department’s “slapdash imposition of political whims” and mandated that officials abandon the revised policy.
“Once again, this Court is faced with a case in which an executive agency has made a last-minute decision to make major, disruptive changes to grants within its purview, all for the express purpose of accomplishing the current administration’s policy objectives,” McElroy wrote in her decision, finding the new guidelines violated the Administrative Procedure Act that governs federal agency rulemaking.
HUD officials have not yet responded to requests for comment on the ruling.
Legal representatives for the challenging organizations praised the court’s decision.
“For more than three decades, the federal government has supported housing providers and communities through HUD’s programs to help people experiencing homelessness move into stable housing,” stated Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which served as co-counsel. “We are pleased that the court has stopped the Trump-Vance administration from holding life-saving funding hostage to a political agenda.”
Ann Oliva, who leads the National Alliance to End Homelessness, called the decision “a victory for people across this nation who have overcome homelessness and stabilized in HUD’s permanent housing programs.”
“Today’s news reinforces a fundamental truth: that the work to end homelessness is not partisan, and never should be interfered with for political means,” Oliva stated.
The lawsuit alleged that the administration sought to overturn long-standing policies based on political considerations, including whether local jurisdictions “support sanctuary protections, harm reduction practices, or inclusive policies for transgender people.”
The Alliance and Women’s Development Corporation contended that HUD overstepped its legal authority with the modifications, describing the revised award process as “shockingly unlawful” and warning it would “irreparably injure qualified applicants for these funds and the communities they serve.”
In defending its position, HUD maintained the updated standards represented an attempt “to ensure the availability of funding to protect our Nation’s most vulnerable individuals and families from the trauma of homelessness while simultaneously promoting self-sufficiency.”
“Defendants acted reasonably and prudently because the NOFO conditions, focusing on public safety, cooperation with law enforcement and prohibitions on illegal drug use, are sufficiently related to the funding goals of self-sufficiency and reduction of trauma,” HUD attorneys argued in court documents.
