A federal judge in Rhode Island ruled Tuesday that Trump administration Efforts to dramatically change the criteria for tens of millions of dollars in funding to help the homeless were illegal.
Several non-profit organizations filed a lawsuit last year accusing the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Changing the rules for receiving $75 million to build housing for homeless families and individuals. Prosecutors accused the Trump administration of issuing a new Notice of Funding Opportunity, or NOFO, for the Continuum of Care Builds program in order to better align with its social policies.
US District Judge Mary McElroy, nominated by President Donald Trump, said the department’s “hasty imposition of political whims” was unlawful, and ordered her to rescind the new policy.
“Once again, this court faces a case in which an executive agency made a last-minute decision to make significant and disruptive changes to grants within its jurisdiction, all for the express purpose of achieving the policy objectives of the existing administration,” McElroy said in her ruling that NOFO violated the Administrative Procedure Act, a law that governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.
A HUD spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Plaintiffs’ lawyers welcomed the ruling.
“For more than three decades, the federal government has supported housing providers and communities through HUD programs to help people experiencing homelessness move into stable housing,” Sky Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, and co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “We are pleased that the Trump administration has barred Vance from holding life-saving funding hostage for a political agenda.”
Anne Oliva, CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, said the ruling was “a victory for people across this nation who have overcome homelessness and found stability in HUD’s permanent housing programs.”
“Today’s news reinforces a fundamental truth: that working to end homelessness is not a partisan business, and should never be interfered with for political purposes,” Oliva said in a statement.
The plaintiffs argued that the Trump administration aimed to overturn decades-old policies to satisfy its political considerations, including whether jurisdictions “supported sanctuary protections, harm reduction practices, or policies inclusive of transgender people.”
The coalition and the Women’s Development Foundation argued that HUD lacked the authority to make the changes, adding that the new award process was “shockingly illegal” and would “irreparably harm qualified applicants for these funds and the communities they serve.”
In its court filings, HUD claimed the new standards were an effort “to ensure funding is available 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 terms of the NOFO, which focus on public safety, cooperation with law enforcement, and prohibition of illicit drug use, adequately relate to the funding goals of self-sufficiency and trauma reduction,” HUD wrote.