HousingWireHousingWire
After fair housing groups filed a recent lawsuit to challenge U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) cuts to fair housing grants, a federal judge in Massachusetts issued a temporary order to stop HUD’s cancellation of the grants.
The National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA), which brought the suit with law firm Relman Colfax, lauded the decision in an announcement on Tuesday. Groups in the states of Massachusetts, Idaho, Texas and Ohio filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Judge Richard G. Stearns stated in his ruling that HUD must “immediately restore plaintiffs to the preexisting status quo by reinstating any [Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP)] grants.” He temporarily prevented the agency from implementing or “reinstating under a different name” a Feb. 27 order that aimed to cancel a total of 78 grants.
The ruling also temporarily bars the department from terminating any FHIP grant unless doing so is consistent with prior appropriations authorized by Congress, among other conditions. If a grant recipient does not abide by corresponding terms, HUD maintains the latitude to cancel funding based on the ruling.
Stearns said that a notice to HUD employees must be provided by close of business on Thursday, March 27, and a compliance status report must be issued by Friday, March 28. The order is set to remain in effect for 14 days.
“We are grateful for [Tuesday’s] decision granting a temporary restraining order, halting the wrongful and unlawful termination of FHIP grants to fight housing discrimination,” Lisa Rice, president and CEO of the NFHA, said in a statement. “This action, taken by HUD at the direction of its internal DOGE task force, is endangering everyday people while empowering wealthy landlords and others to discriminate.”
The initial 36-page complaint explains that the grants were terminated “at the direction of [DOGE].” It cites an executive order from President Donald Trump and HUD’s own determination that the canceled programs “no longer effectuate the program goals or agency priorities.”
The plaintiffs challenged this by saying that prior congressional appropriations have authorized the grant funds, which also gave the organizations the autonomy to “identify and remedy” instances of discrimination.
“FHIP grants, which are authorized by Congress and receive annual appropriations, have been provided for decades under administrations of both parties and are key to the nation’s ability to enforce the Fair Housing Act and ensure equal access to housing,” Rice added.
