Judge Halts Federal Housing Program Changes, Protecting Thousands from Homelessness

A federal judge has temporarily blocked significant changes to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Continuum of Care grant program, a critical source of federal funding for homelessness assistance. The ruling, issued after a lawsuit by Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown and a coalition of other states, aims to prevent tens of thousands of individuals nationwide from losing their housing. The court has ordered HUD to process grant applications under the program’s previous guidelines, preserving existing support structures.

The legal challenge, spearheaded by Attorney General Brown, argued that HUD unlawfully altered the Continuum of Care program by rescinding a vital program notice and replacing it with one that restricted access to long-term housing solutions and other essential services. This move, according to the lawsuit, contravened congressional intent by significantly curtailing funding for permanent housing and imposing new, unauthorized conditions for accessing these funds. These added conditions reportedly penalized housing providers for recognizing gender diversity and required residents to agree to further stipulations to secure housing. Additionally, the changes were alleged to penalize providers in areas with strict anti-homelessness laws and disadvantage programs that assist individuals with mental health conditions and substance use disorders. The timing of the new program notice also fell outside of HUD’s congressionally mandated deadline, creating a high probability of funding disruptions.

In Maryland alone, the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development estimated that these challenged funding caps could lead to a reduction of over $45 million for permanent housing projects. This financial cutback was projected to affect more than 4,000 individuals who rely on these housing assistance programs. The coalition of 20 attorneys general and two governors who joined the lawsuit contended that HUD’s actions were arbitrary and capricious. They argued that HUD failed to adequately explain its departure from established policies, did not properly consider the direct impact of abruptly ending funding for existing housing occupied by formerly homeless individuals and families, and violated statutory timelines by bypassing required rulemaking processes before implementing the changes.

The lawsuit was filed by the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, along with the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania. The preliminary injunction granted by U.S. District Court Judge Mary McElroy is seen as a crucial first step in ensuring that individuals and families at risk of homelessness maintain their housing.

Article by Mel Anara, based upon information from the Maryland Attorney General’s Office

---