RI federal judge blocks Trump administration's restrictions on grants from Office on Violence Against Women

Boston Globe

a day ago

Advertisement
A group of 17 state coalitions, led by the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence, filed a lawsuit in June in US District Court in Rhode Island against US Attorney General Pamela Bondi, the Department of Justice, and the acting director of the Office on Violence Against Women.
Get Rhode Map
A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State.
Enter Email
Sign Up
They argued that the restrictions were unlawful and that the administration had overstepped its authority and violated the statutory requirements in the
After hearing arguments on July 29, US District Court Judge William E. Smith issued his decision Friday, siding with the Coalition that the restrictions ran afoul of the prohibition against 'arbitrary and capricious' actions by the federal agency.
Advertisement
Smith decided that the coalition was likely to succeed in its lawsuit finding that the new restrictions violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal law that governs how agencies develop regulations.
He wrote that he found that the federal Office's decision to impose those conditions was 'in such a vague and haphazard manner to be arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.'
Smith criticized the process that the Office used as 'wholly under-reasoned and arbitrary.' He noted that the federal office provided 'a single declaration' from a supervisory official as the basis for its decisions.
The judge was unimpressed. He wrote that the office couldn't 'plausibly claim' that it examined any relevant data and that it 'completely failed to consider' the impacts of its decisions.
Smith also looked at the coalitions' fears and confusion over what the changes in the grants would mean for their work. For one thing, many who provide services to victims who are transgender questioned whether they would be permitted to provide the same quality of services — even using their preferred pronouns and training staff on serving people who are transgender or binary. And some also feared they wouldn't be able to give victims of sexual assault and domestic violence any options other than reaching out to law enforcement, which not all victims are prepared to do.
Smith wrote that the coalitions were faced with a difficult choice: If they accepted the grants with the new conditions, it would require them to guess what 'formerly unobjectionable activities' were now not allowed, and therefore risk prosecution under the False Claims Act.
Without the money, though, the organizations couldn't do their work.
Advertisement
The coalitions applauded the judge's order.
'This order is a critical step toward protecting survivors and ensuring that communities across the country can continue to provide the services Congress mandated,' the Coalition said in a statement. 'The administration's attempt to politicize essential funding that supports survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault was not just unlawful, it was cruel. We will continue to be alongside survivors in fighting for justice and accountability.'
The Violence Against Women Act, which passed in 1994, specifically addressed concerns about incidents of violent crimes against women such as domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and dating violence.
In May, the office issued new restrictions on the grants, with a list of new categories that the money couldn't be used for. Those included: to promote or facilitate 'the violation of federal immigrations law,' promote 'gender ideology,' promote 'discriminatory programs or ideology' including 'illegal ... diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility' programs, and also any activities that 'frame domestic violence or sexual assault as systemic social justice issues rather than criminal offenses.'
In June, the office required all grant applicants to submit a letter certifying the grants wouldn't be used for those out-of-scope activities. It also required that all award recipients certify that they do not 'operate any programs (including any such programs having components relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion) that violate any applicable federal civil rights or nondiscrimination laws.'
The Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which includes 10 member agencies, has an annual budget is about $5.3 million, with about $1 million in grants from the Office on Violence Against Women.
The other groups in the lawsuit include: the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault, DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence, End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin: The Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Idaho Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Jane Doe Inc. (the Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence), Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Oregon Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, ValorUS, Violence Free Minnesota, Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance, and the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault.
Advertisement
Amanda Milkovits can be reached at