A federal judge in Rhode Island recently made an important ruling regarding funding for homeless individuals and families. Judge Mary McElroy decided that the Trump administration’s attempt to change the rules for a significant funding program was unlawful.
The case began when several nonprofits filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). They claimed that the new Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for the Continuum of Care Builds program was altered to better fit the administration’s political agenda, which included a total of $75 million meant to help build housing for those experiencing homelessness.
In her ruling, Judge McElroy criticized the department’s actions as a “slapdash imposition of political whims.” She pointed out that the changes were made hastily and without proper procedure, violating the Administrative Procedure Act—a law that governs how federal agencies create and implement regulations.
HUD did not respond immediately to requests for comments on the ruling. However, advocates for the plaintiffs were quick to celebrate the decision.
Skye Perryman, the president and CEO of Democracy Forward and co-counsel for the plaintiffs, stated, “We are pleased that the court has stopped the Trump-Vance administration from holding life-saving funding hostage to a political agenda.” This sentiment was echoed by Ann Oliva, CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, who described the ruling as a victory for those who have struggled with homelessness.
Oliva emphasized, “Today’s news reinforces a fundamental truth: that the work to end homelessness is not partisan and should not be interfered with for political means.”
The plaintiffs argued that the Trump administration aimed to alter established policies to align with its political views, particularly regarding support for sanctuary protections, harm reduction practices, and inclusive policies for transgender individuals.
The Alliance and the Women’s Development Corporation claimed that HUD overstepped its authority with the new rules, describing the process as “shockingly unlawful” and potentially damaging to qualified applicants and their communities.
In defense, HUD argued that the new criteria were intended to protect vulnerable individuals and families from homelessness while promoting self-sufficiency. They asserted that conditions focusing on public safety and cooperation with law enforcement were relevant to the funding goals.
