Trump Administration Loses Lawsuit Over Homelessness Funding Rules

A federal judge in Rhode Island ruled against changes the federal government sought to the main source of funding for housing the homeless. The judge made the ruling on the grounds that the government didn’t adequately consider the impact the changes would have on providers or on people who need such agencies to obtain and remain in housing. 

The Department of Housing and Urban Development's actions on this front constituted a violation of federal law, U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy said in a ruling issued Monday. 

“Overall, the actions undertaken by HUD in attempting to hastily eliminate its Housing First approach serve as the hallmark of unreasoned decision making,” McElroy wrote. 

The case was brought by 21 states and the District of Columbia and impacts more than $3B, Bloomberg reported. 

Central to the case was a program called Continuum of Care, which provides funding for homelessness housing and prevention programs. Late last year, HUD suddenly outlined a new way to administer the programs. The new guidelines were a dramatic shift from previous years, with no advance warning or extra time to comply. Cities and advocacy organizations sued. 

The changes highlighted in the lawsuit included a policy shift that would lower the funding that could be used for permanent housing from 90% to 30%. HUD also sought to move the majority of the funds to temporary transitional housing assistance, prioritizing funding for programs that impose work or service requirements on residents.

HUD has criticized the approach known as housing first, which emphasizes getting homeless people housed before attempting to address other issues, such as addiction or unemployment. 

Funding would have been prioritized for cities that enforced public camping bans. HUD also proposed withholding funding from programs that helped “facilitate racial preferences” or “violate the sex binary in humans.”

Although the ruling is a victory for the states and organizations that wanted the changes overturned, it also left the door open for possible attempts to roll out the changes at a later date, as McElroy denied a request from the plaintiffs for a permanent injunction. 

Representatives for HUD didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.