On March 31, a federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development acted illegally when it significantly altered the funding eligibility criteria for Continuum of Care Builds, a federal grant program aimed at combatting homelessness.
The federal government’s updated eligibility criteria included stipulations in line with Trump administration priorities, requiring that nonprofits applying for funding must not “use a definition of sex other than as binary” or “facilitate racial preferences.” The change also would have restricted grant access for programs in sanctuary jurisdictions, according to the lawsuit.
CoC Builds specifically provides grants to local nonprofits for “construction, acquisition or rehabilitation” of permanent supportive housing units, according to their website.
On April 1, in a separate lawsuit, a three-judge panel of the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy in Providence that blocked HUD from changing the criteria for how CoC grants are distributed.
“The Trump Administration tried to condition federal homelessness prevention funds in a partisan way that prioritized partisan political objectives over effectively helping people,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) wrote in the press release.
The White House did not respond to The Herald’s request for comment.
In an interview with The Herald, Kevin Love Hubbard, Counsel at the Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island, explained that the initial Notice of Funding Opportunity issued to prospective CoC Builds applicants required them to certify “that they did not deny the sex binary.” Hubbard and his colleagues at the Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island were part of the legal team that represented the National Alliance to End Homelessness and Women’s Development Corporation in the CoC Builds lawsuit.
“Essentially, in order to apply, applicants had to say, ‘yes, we agree with you that trans people don’t exist,’” Hubbard said. This condition violates the First Amendment since “it’s the government telling you what you have to believe and say,” he argued.
Steven Brown, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island — another group that helped represent the NAEH and WDC — told The Herald that organizations residing “in a state or locality that is considered a sanctuary jurisdiction by the Trump administration” were also denied HUD funding.
“The conditions were really not related to the delivery of services at all, not related to how well thought out your proposal was (or) anything to do with the program,” said Frank Shea, executive director of WDC.
Accepting the administration’s conditions, he said, would set a “very dangerous” precedent.
Plaintiffs in the CoC Builds case are arguing that HUD’s actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act, which is “designed to make sure” that government agencies act “in a rational and logical way that follows an appropriate procedure,” Hubbard said.
“The federal government adopted these changes without providing any real justifications for them, which they’re obligated to do under the APA,” Steven Brown said.
The claims are that “the government acted arbitrarily and capriciously,” Hubbard added. The plaintiffs argued that the government’s main faults were “making these changes so late in the game after statutory deadlines” and “implementing these new political agendas without providing any evidence that that’s a good thing to do.”
In the Trump administration’s early push to change CoC grant requirements, HUD had also outlined its plans to shift away from a “housing first” approach to addressing homelessness. In December, the administration abruptly pulled that proposal.
A HUD spokesperson wrote in an email to The Herald that “HUD remains committed to reforming the misguided ‘Housing First’ approach” to “restore the CoC program to its original purpose of serving the most vulnerable Americans.”
Steven Brown explained that the “Housing First” approach means that “if somebody is unhoused, the first thing you want to do is get them some housing to stabilize them.”
But the Trump administration’s initially proposed conditions would have required organizations to accept funds under a “‘treatment first’ policy,” which means that the grant money must first be used to address issues such as substance abuse before individuals are “entitled to housing,” he said.
While challenging the Trump administration’s efforts can be “quite scary” for small nonprofit plaintiffs, their actions are important, Hubbard said. “Sometimes it takes people who are willing to fight just to have any rights at all.”
Annika Melwani is a metro senior staff writer covering state politics and justice. She is from New York City and plans on concentrating in English and International and Public Affairs. In her free time, she can be found reading or drinking an iced vanilla latte.
