A federal judge in Rhode Island ruled Tuesday that Trump administration’s The effort to dramatically change the criteria to receive millions of dollars in funding to help homeless people was unlawful.
Several nonprofits filed a lawsuit last year accusing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Changing the rules to receive $75 million to build housing for homeless families and individuals. The plaintiffs accused the Trump administration of issuing a new Notice of Funding Opportunity, or NOFO, for the Continuum of Care Builds program to better align with its social policies.
U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy, nominated by President Donald Trump, said the department’s “imposition of a political whim” was unlawful and ordered the new policy struck down.
McElroy said in his decision, “Once again, this Court is faced with a case in which an executive agency has made a last-minute decision to make large, disruptive changes to the grants within its scope, all for the express purpose of meeting the policy objectives of the current administration.”
A HUD spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Advocates for the plaintiffs welcomed the 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,” Sky Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “We are pleased the court has stopped the Trump-Vance administration from holding life-saving funding hostage to a political agenda.”
Ann Oliva, CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, said the decision is “a victory for people across this country who have overcome homelessness and become stable in HUD’s permanent housing programs.”
“Today’s news reinforces a fundamental truth: The work to end homelessness is not partisan, and should never be interfered with for political ends,” Oliva said in a statement.
The plaintiffs argued that the Trump administration is aiming to change decades of policing to satisfy its political views, including whether jurisdictions support “sanctuary protections, harm reduction practices, or inclusive policies for transgender people.”
The Alliance and the Women’s Development Corporation argued that HUD lacked the authority to make the changes, and said the new award process was “shockingly unlawful” and “will cause irreparable harm to eligible applicants for these funds and the communities they serve.”
In its court filings, HUD argued that the new criteria were an effort to “promote self-reliance while ensuring the availability of funds to protect our nation’s most vulnerable individuals and families from the trauma of homelessness.”
HUD wrote, “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, are adequately related to the funding goals of self-sufficiency and trauma reduction.”
