The Chicago Housing Authority is suing President Donald Trump’s administration over new requirements targeting “diversity” that could threaten up to 13% of the agency’s annual budget, according to a news release from the housing agency.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development recently changed their grants, requiring recipients sign on to certify none of the funds will be used for “diversity, equity and inclusion mandates, policies or programs,” gender ideology; elective abortions; and immigration-related policies.
The federal lawsuit filed by the CHA is challenging that new mandate, and is seeking a temporary restraining order to halt the implementation of the new prerequisites. HUD’s grant applications are due Oct. 21, but city officials argue they were unable to apply because the federal agency, “provided no additional information or clarification on these requirements” outside quoting recent executive orders.
“This lawsuit is intended to secure the future of funding for our 135,000 residents throughout the city of Chicago, including thousands of senior residents and children who rely on us. We are asking the court to step in and provide guidance on the lawfulness of the conditions HUD is seeking to impose,” said CHA Operating Chairman Matthew Brewer. “This intervention is a necessary last resort since our discussions with HUD have been limited due to the government shutdown.”
HUD didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment, citing the federal government shut down.
In a statement, city officials pointed to a recent preliminary injunction in a similar Rhode Island case in which domestic violence and housing advocacy groups sued over similar changes to grant application requirements.
In that case, U.S. District judge Melissa R. DuBose didn’t mandate the dispersal of funds, but temporarily restricted the new federal requirements for grants from moving forward.
Her order cited potential violations of the Administrative Procedure Act — which prohibits the federal government from imposing specific conditions on a subset of grants — as well as “irreparable harm” to the groups seeking the funds.
“The Plaintiffs stand between a rock and a hard place, and surely such a high stakes dilemma constitutes irreparable harm in the eyes of this Court,” DuBose said in her order. “Without preliminary relief, the Plaintiffs will face irreparable harm that will disrupt vital services to victims of homelessness and domestic and sexual violence. Defendants will merely need to revert back to considering grant applications and awarding funds as they normally would.”
