A federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that the Trump administration’s effort to overhaul the criteria for a federal program intended to help people experiencing homelessness was unlawful, ordering the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to scrap the changes. The ruling came Tuesday from U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy, who was nominated by President Donald Trump.
The lawsuit, filed by several nonprofits, challenged HUD’s issuance of a new Notice of Funding Opportunity, or NOFO, for the Continuum of Care Builds program. According to the plaintiffs, the agency used the NOFO to change the rules for receiving $75 million to build housing for homeless families and individuals and to align the program more closely with the administration’s social policies.
McElroy said in her decision that HUD’s approach violated the Administrative Procedure Act, a law that governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations. She described the agency’s move as a last-minute change with political objectives, saying the department’s “slapdash imposition of political whims” was unlawful and that she ordered it to scrap the new policy.
McElroy also framed the case as one in which, in her view, an executive agency made major, disruptive grant changes within its purview “all for the express purpose of accomplishing the current administration’s policy objectives.” In her ruling, she cited what she described as the executive agency’s improper decision-making in the NOFO process.
A HUD spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment, according to the report. Advocates for the plaintiffs welcomed the outcome, arguing that the decision stops federal homeless-housing funds from being conditioned on political considerations.
Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman, who served as co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said in a statement, “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.” Perryman added, “We are pleased that 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, characterized the ruling as benefiting people who have previously experienced homelessness, saying it was “a victory for people across this nation who have overcome homelessness and stabilized in HUD’s permanent housing programs.” Oliva also said, “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.”
The plaintiffs argued that the Trump administration sought to upend longstanding policies to satisfy political considerations, including whether jurisdictions “support sanctuary protections, harm reduction practices, or inclusive policies for transgender people.” The Alliance and the Women’s Development Corporation contended that HUD lacked the authority to make the changes and described the award process as unlawful.
In its court filings, HUD argued that the new criteria was designed “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.” The department wrote that the NOFO conditions, including requirements it described as focusing on public safety, cooperation with law enforcement and prohibitions on illegal drug use, were sufficiently tied to the funding goals.
The case centers on how agencies can revise grant terms through notices like a NOFO and what procedures they must follow when doing so, particularly when changes affect access to federal funds intended for homeless housing.