A federal judge ruled Friday that the Trump administration cannot impose conditions on grants that fund efforts to combat domestic violence, including prohibiting groups from promoting diversity, equity and inclusion or providing resources for abortion.
U.S. District Court Judge Melissa DuBose in Providence, Rhode Island, granted a motion filed by 17 state coalitions against domestic and sexual violence for a preliminary injunction, preventing the Trump administration from enforcing its conditions while the lawsuit unfolds.
“Without preliminary relief, plaintiffs will face irreparable harm that will disrupt vital services for victims of homelessness and domestic and sexual violence,” DuBose wrote in his ruling. “In contrast, if preliminary relief is granted, defendants will simply have to reconsider grant applications and award funds as they normally would.”
DuBose, however, went further in the scope of his ruling. She ruled that the decision barring these grant conditions went beyond the plaintiffs and will apply to anyone applying for money distributed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
“Organizations serving survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault, LGBTQ+ youth, and homeless people should not be forced to abandon their work, erase the identities of those they serve, or compromise their values just to keep their doors open,” Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which was one of the groups representing the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “This illegal and harmful policy puts extreme schemes before people’s dignity and safety by restricting essential federal support.”
Emily Martin, program director at the National Women’s Law Center, one of five organizations representing the coalitions, also welcomed the ruling.
“When this administration claims to be attacking ‘illegal DEI’ and ‘gender ideology,’ what they are really trying to do is strip life-saving services from survivors of sexual violence and domestic violence, LGBTQ+ youth, and the homeless,” Martin said. “Today’s order makes clear that these federal grants exist to serve people in need, not to advance a regressive political agenda.”
Neither HUD nor HHS responded to a request for comment.
In their July lawsuit, the groups said the Trump administration was putting them in a difficult position.
If they do not apply for federal money allocated under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, they may not be able to provide rape crisis centers, battered women’s shelters, and other programs to support victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. But if the groups apply, they said they would be forced to “fundamentally change their programming, abandon outreach methods and programs designed to best serve their communities, and risk exposing themselves to ruinous liability.”
The groups suing, including organizations fighting domestic violence from California to Rhode Island, argue that the conditions violate the First Amendment. They also argue that the conditions violate the Administrative Procedure Law by exceeding the defendants’ authority by “in some cases coming into direct conflict with applicable law or failing to follow the required procedure.”
The government argues that the matter concerns payments to these groups and, as such, should be handled by the Court of Federal Claims.
Even if the jurisdiction argument fails, the government argues that federal agencies can impose conditions on funding that “promote certain policies and priorities consistent with the authority provided by the grant program statutes.”
“Both agencies have long required compliance with federal anti-discrimination law as a condition of receiving a federal grant,” the government wrote in court papers.
Another Rhode Island judge in August granted a preliminary injunction involving some of the same groups in a lawsuit against the Justice Department.