Lawsuit challenges Trump's illegal conditions on housing grants
...the Trump administration would rather deny that funding and then rail against those who are unhoused. This is just their latest effort to exacerbate the very problem they pretend to want to solve.
From an ACLU of Rhode Island press release:
The National Alliance to End Homelessness and the Women’s Development Corporation, a Rhode Island organization that develops affordable housing, filed a lawsuit in Rhode Island today, as well as a motion for a temporary restraining order, against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and HUD Secretary Scott Turner. The suit challenges new funding restrictions that unlawfully condition access to federal housing grants on compliance with the Trump-Vance Administration’s partisan agenda. Plaintiffs are represented by Democracy Forward, National Homelessness Law Center, Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island, and the ACLU of Rhode Island.
“Instead of addressing the needs of individuals and families experiencing homelessness, as Congress intended, the Administration is using these funds as a political tool to punish communities that support all of us, regardless of our country of origin, our gender identity, or our mental health needs,” said Amy Romero, Chief Legal Counsel for Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, asserts that HUD’s newly imposed criteria for “Continuum of Care (CoC) Builds” grants are unconstitutional and unlawful. Under the new funding application rules, service providers and communities are blocked from applying for federal housing funds for new permanent supportive housing for individuals and families experiencing homelessness if they operate in jurisdictions with policies the Trump-Vance administration disfavors. This includes cities and states, like Rhode Island, that the Trump Administration deems to be “sanctuary jurisdictions” for immigrants; that provide services considered “harm reduction” services for drug users; and that have inclusive policies for transgender people.
“Rhode Island is facing a severe housing crisis, and the Women’s Development Corporation could help address it with federal funding," said Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island. “Yet the Trump administration would rather deny that funding and then rail against those who are unhoused. This is just their latest effort to exacerbate the very problem they pretend to want to solve. We are hopeful that the court will reject this blatant ideological distortion of the grant process.”
For more than three decades, the federal government has supported housing providers and communities through HUD’s homelessness programs to help people experiencing homelessness move into stable housing. Plaintiffs argue that HUD’s sudden reversal of the previously released funding opportunity unlawfully weaponizes federal funding to coerce jurisdictions and providers into advancing the administration’s unrelated policy agenda.
The case, National Alliance to End Homelessness v. Turner, et al., asks the court to block HUD’s unlawful funding restrictions and restore fair access to federal housing funds for providers nationwide.
Read the complaint here.
Appeals Court Rejects Latest Trump-Vance Administration Attack on Funding for Solutions to Homelessness
Count Continues to Block Unlawful Grant Restrictions that Would Push Nearly 200,000 Americans into Homelessness
In a decision that will protect funding for proven solutions to homelessness, the First Circuit Court of Appeals today rejected a Trump-Vance administration request to overturn a court order that is currently preventing the administration from implementing unlawful and unreasonable restrictions on that funding. This decision comes in an ongoing case to protect resources for local governments and organizations, like Crossroads and Youth Pride, that fund permanent housing projects for veterans, seniors, people with disabilities, and individuals and families with children experiencing homelessness. Plaintiffs in the case include Crossroads Rhode Island and Youth Pride, Inc.
Among other claims, the lawsuit raises a First Amendment challenge to a new funding condition that threatens to reject any applicant that has used or uses “a definition of sex other than as binary in humans.” The suit also argues that HUD’s new policies are contrary to federal law, and arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. In rejecting the government’s request to issue a stay of the lower court’s decision, the appeals court noted that “the record paints a disturbing picture of the harms that would flow to the plaintiffs, their constituents, and the public from issuing a stay.”
This case, National Alliance to End Homelessness et al. v. HUD, is a separate lawsuit from the National Alliance to End Homelessness et al. v. Turner et al., which was decided on Tuesday, March 31.
For years and across multiple presidential administrations, the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Continuum of Care (CoC) Program has helped provide the resources needed to fund permanent housing projects. On November 13, 2025, however, without explanation, HUD rescinded the two-year notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) that should have governed FY 2025 awards and replaced it with one that threatens existing services, which could push nearly 200,000 Americans into homelessness. HUD then issued yet another new NOFO a month later. The new NOFO for FY 2025 upended the program’s legally required stability and would have a devastating impact on communities, unhoused and previously unhoused children, youth, adults, and families, and the service providers who rely on federal funding to provide needed help.
A broad coalition of local governments and nonprofit organizations took legal action to stop the new NOFO in National Alliance to End Homelessness et al. v. HUD. In December 2025, a federal judge granted preliminary relief, which temporarily blocks the administration’s attempts to implement unlawful and unreasonable restrictions that shift funding away from proven solutions to homelessness. Today’s decision maintains the block and confirms that Congress’s recent law requiring HUD to renew existing grants does not permit HUD to impose unlawful conditions.
The coalition behind the lawsuit includes the National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH), the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), Crossroads Rhode Island, Youth Pride, Inc., as well as the County of Santa Clara, Calif., San Francisco, Calif., King County, Wash., Boston, Mass., Cambridge, Mass., Nashville, Tenn., and Tucson, Ariz.
The coalition released the following statement in response to the order:
“As the Trump-Vance administration continues to weaponize federal funding and attempts to hold hostage support for people experiencing homelessness – including families, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities – we are relieved that the appeals court has left the order we earned late last year in place. We will continue to pursue this case and remain dedicated to protecting proven solutions to homelessness and the hundreds of thousands of people who rely on this vital support.”
Democracy Forward and the ACLU Foundation of Rhode Island represent the coalition of nonprofit organizations in the matter; the National Homelessness Law Center represents NAEH and NLIHC; Public Rights Project represents the cities of Boston, Cambridge, Nashville, and Tucson; and Santa Clara County, King County, and San Francisco represent themselves. The Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island represents all plaintiffs.
Plaintiff and co-counsel quotes regarding the original filing are available here.
Read the court’s order https://www.riaclu.org/cases/national-alliance-to-end-homelessness-v-u-s-department-of-housing-and-urban-development/
COURT FINDS TRUMP-VANCE ADMINISTRATION VIOLATED LAW
IN RUSH TO POLITICIZE HOUSING GRANTS
National Alliance to End Homelessness and Women’s Development Corporation
Secure Victory in Key Executive Overreach Lawsuit
A federal court in Rhode Island ruled late yesterday that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and HUD Secretary Scott Turner violated the law through their “slapdash imposition of political whims” when approving new funding restrictions that would have unlawfully conditioned access to federal housing grants on compliance with the Trump-Vance administration’s partisan agenda.
The decision, issued by Judge Mary S. McElroy in National Alliance to End Homelessness v. Turner, et al., is a victory for the NAEH and Rhode Island’s Women’s Development Corporation, which filed a lawsuit last September challenging the grant restrictions. Democracy Forward represents the groups, National Homelessness Law Center, Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island, and the ACLU Foundation of Rhode Island.
The lawsuit asserted that HUD’s newly imposed criteria for “Continuum of Care (CoC) Builds” grants were unlawful. This is the third time that HUD has issued this same grant opportunity, even after grant awards had already been announced to Congress. In doing so, HUD introduced extreme political criteria to the application.
Under the new funding application rules, service providers and communities were blocked from applying for federal housing funds for new permanent supportive housing for individuals and families experiencing homelessness if they operate in jurisdictions with policies the Trump-Vance administration disfavors. This includes states and cities with sanctuary protections, as well as cities that do not criminalize public camping. The new funding criteria also would have disqualified organizations that provide services considered “harm reduction,” such as drug injection sites, and those that have inclusive policies for transgender people.
Yesterday’s ruling declares the notice announcing the funding opportunities, the new political criteria HUD used when deciding to issue grants, and a one-week application period for the grants all unlawful under the federal Administrative Procedures Act, and orders the policies vacated and set aside. The court additionally ordered that the already appropriated funding remain available for award under a new application process.
“The solution to homelessness is stable, predictable, permanent housing,” said Frank Shea, Executive Director of Women’s Development Corporation. “Organizations providing this housing also need fair, predictable programs that are free of politicized criteria. We are glad the court agrees. Our neighbors in need of housing deserve nothing less.”
“The Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island will continue to fight for Rhode Islanders whenever and however the Trump Administration threatens them with unlawful actions,” said Amy Romero, Chief Legal Counsel of Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island. “We are pleased with this court’s decision that recognizes that this Administration violated the law by imposing its political whims on federal funds intended to address the needs of individuals and families experiencing homelessness.”
“The federal government’s distortion of the grant process for blatant political and ideological gains put funding for life-saving services at risk,” said Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island. “We are extremely gratified that Rhode Island organizations like the Women’s Development Corporation will be allowed to receive federal funding thanks to the court’s decision.”
The plaintiffs are represented by Kristin Bateman, Yenisey Rodríguez, Kristen Miller, and Robin Thurston from Democracy Forward; Amy Romero and Kevin Love Hubbard for the Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island; Antonia Fasanelli from the National Homelessness Law Center; and Lynette Labinger for the ACLU Foundation of Rhode Island.
Read the order here:
https://www.riaclu.org/cases/national-alliance-to-end-homelessness-v-scott-turner-et-al/
The original filing here:
https://www.riaclu.org/cases/national-alliance-to-end-homelessness-v-scott-turner-et-al/
Find quotes from the national plaintiffs, participating attorneys, and organizations here:
https://www.riaclu.org/cases/national-alliance-to-end-homelessness-v-scott-turner-et-al/?document=NAEH-v-Turner-Decision-Quotes-(March-2026)