Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
A federal judge ruled Friday that trump The administration cannot impose conditions on grants that fund efforts to combat domestic violence, including preventing groups from promoting diversity, equity and inclusion or providing abortion resources.
US District Court Judge Melissa DuBose Thrift, Rhode IslandA motion by 17 statewide anti-domestic and sexual violence coalitions for a preliminary injunction was approved, which prevents the Trump administration from enforcing its terms while the lawsuit continues.
“Without preliminary relief, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm that will disrupt vital services for the homeless and victims of domestic and sexual violence,” DuBose wrote in his decision. “By contrast, if preliminary relief is granted, the defendants will simply be required to consider grant applications and award funds as they normally do.”
However, DuBose went further in the scope of her rule. He ruled that the decision blocking these grant conditions went beyond the plaintiffs and would apply to anyone applying for money awarded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
“Organizations serving survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault, LGBTQ+ youth, and people experiencing homelessness should not be forced to abandon their work, erase the identities of those they serve, or compromise their values just to keep their doors open,” said Sky Perryman, president and ceo Democracy Forward, which was one of the groups representing the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “This unlawful and harmful policy puts extreme plans ahead of people’s dignity and safety by restricting essential federal support.”
Emily Martin, chief program officer at the National Women’s Law Center, one of the five organizations representing the coalition, also welcomed the decision.
“When this administration claims to target ‘illegal DEI’ and ‘gender ideology,’ it is really trying to take away life-saving services from survivors of sexual violence and domestic violence, LGBTQ+ youth, and the unhoused,” Martin said. “Today’s order makes clear that these federal grants exist to serve people in need, not to advance a regressive political agenda.”
Neither HUD nor HHS responded to requests for comment.
In their July lawsuit, the groups said the Trump administration is putting them in a difficult position.
If they do not apply for federal funding allocated under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, they may not be able to provide rape crisis centers, battered women’s shelters, and other programs to support victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. But if the groups apply, he said they would be forced to “fundamentally change their programming, abandon outreach methods and programs designed to best serve their communities, and put themselves at risk for catastrophic liability.”
The groups suing, including organizations combating domestic violence from California to Rhode Island, argue that the terms violate the First Amendment. They also argue that the terms violate the Administrative Procedure Act by exceeding the defendants’ authority by “grossly conflicting with governing law in some cases or by failing to follow required procedure.”
The government argues that the case concerns payments to these groups and, as such, should be handled by the Court of Federal Claims.
Even if the jurisdiction argument fails, the government argues that federal agencies can impose conditions on funding that “further pursue certain policies and priorities consistent with the authority provided by grant program statute.”
“Both agencies have long been required to comply with federal anti-discrimination law as a condition of receiving federal grants,” the government wrote in court documents.