Attorneys in fair housing lawsuit fight to keep funding in place

Yahoo

22-04-2025

Millions of dollars in federal fair housing grant funding hang in the balance until the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decides where claims about federal funding freezes should be heard.
The plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit allege the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, unlawfully terminated $30 million in Congressionally allocated funding to dozens of fair housing organizations nationwide.
A legal expert at Duke University says the executive branch does not have the authority to do that.
Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Richard G. Stearns agreed to delay proceedings in a lawsuit filed in March by four fair housing organizations — including the Massachusetts Fair Housing Center in Holyoke. The suit names both DOGE and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The stay comes as the 1st Circuit moves to decide whether claims over the federal funding freeze should be heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals.
The four organizations assert they were rocked by the loss of funding, which affected 66 organizations nationwide, after the grants were found to contain diversity, equity and inclusion language.
The grants were from the Fair Housing Initiatives Program, which helped the organizations weed out housing discrimination in their communities, the plaintiffs said.
Stearns reinstated the funds by a temporary restraining order to the organizations on March 25 in a five-minute court hearing in Boston. The temporary restraining order was to be in place until May 16.
But last week, Stearns ordered that the grant funding should be dissolved after a Supreme Court decision in a separate case that the 1st Circuit heard. That decision laid the ground work for how Stearns said he would hear this case.
Now, the plaintiffs are requesting a pause in the proceedings until a 1st Circuit decision is made. The government has agreed to this request for relief, according to court documents.
The 1st Circuit is made up of district courts in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island.
'We are disappointed that the District Court dissolved the TRO and have filed a notice of appeal,' said Attorney Lila Miller, a partner at Relman Colfax, the Washington, D.C. law firm representing the plaintiffs, in an emailed statement. The grants, she said, are an essential tool for protecting equal access to housing opportunity.
Julian Canzoneri, the attorney representing HUD and DOGE, did not return a phone call seeking comment.
The 1st Circuit recently heard a case involving the several states, including California and Massachusetts, about grant funding the U.S. Department of Education terminated.
The department requested a motion to stay, which the 1st Circuit reviewed. It found that termination letters the DOE sent to the states lacked specific reasons for the grant cancellations, a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.
'Plaintiffs' appeal presents a serious legal question, the resolution of which will determine the scope and forum for plaintiffs' claims,' said the plaintiffs' motion for a stay, which the government agreed to.
The plaintiffs are still pursuing their case against DOGE, alleging that the agency acted beyond its legal power, the court documents said.
Jeff Powell, a professor at Duke University's law school who focuses on Constitutional law, said because DOGE is not a governmental agency created by Congress, it has no authority to order HUD to slash millions of dollars in grant funding.
'The president can choose his advisors, and there is no legal reason why presidents can't do that,' he said in a phone interview, 'but DOGE or Mr. Musk have no authority to tell anyone what to do.'
Powell explained that the standard view of Congressionally allocated funding is that if the delegation requires a federal department to spend or grant a certain amount of money, 'the president can't impound the funds,' he said.
When asked if he thinks DOGE or the Trump administration will heed court rulings in cases going forward, 'it has been our tradition, since James Madison was president in the 19th century, for a president to enforce what the courts say,' Powell said.
'Following the law is a part of our system,' he said.
Springfield approves contract for union with no members
Mass. couple wins $360K without lawyers but say flawed laws left no choice
For Western Mass. country store, grant helped raise a new barn
WMass Catholics mourn, celebrate Pope Francis, seen as voice of the poor