Federal Judge Blocks HHS and HUD Grant Restrictions on Domestic Violence and DEI Programs

A federal judge in Rhode Island has barred the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and Housing and Urban Development from enforcing new federal grant conditions that restrict funding for programs connected to diversity, equity, inclusion, gender identity, or abortion-related services.

In a decision issued on October 10, 2025, U.S. District Judge Melissa R. DuBose granted a preliminary injunctionpreliminary injunctionA preliminary injunction is a temporary court order issued before a case is finally decided that requires a party to take or stop an action while the litigation continues. Federal courts generally consider the likelihood of success, irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest before granting one.Read more → in Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence et al. v. Kennedy, finding that the new grant rules likely violate federal law and the Constitution. The order halts enforcement of the restrictions nationwide while the case proceeds.

The lawsuit was filed by more than twenty nonprofit coalitions that provide services to survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and homelessness. The plaintiffs argued that the new federal conditions forced them to reject DEI programs and avoid activities referencing gender identity or abortion to remain eligible for funding. They said the changes violated their rights under the First and Fifth Amendments and exceeded the agencies’ authority under the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that governs how agencies create and enforce regulations.

Judge DuBose agreed, ruling that the government’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by law. The court said the agencies failed to provide any explanation for the new rules or consider how they would affect vulnerable populations. The decision found that the agencies acted beyond their legal authority and failed to follow proper administrative procedures.

The court also found that the policies likely violate the First Amendment by compelling organizations to align with the government’s political and social views. The judge wrote that the conditions “go beyond defining the limits of the federally funded program to defining the recipient,” concluding that they effectively pressured grantees to censor themselves to retain funding.

Judge DuBose further determined that the policies were unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment because they contained undefined and subjective language. Terms such as “promote gender ideology” and “promote elective abortion” were not clearly explained by the agencies. During a hearing, government counsel was unable to define the terms, which the court said left grantees exposed to arbitrary enforcement and possible violations under the False Claims Act, a law that imposes penalties for misusing federal funds.

The plaintiffs told the court that accepting the new conditions would force them to choose between violating their missions or losing essential federal funding that supports shelters, housing programs, and victim advocacy. The court agreed that this situation constituted irreparable harm, noting that even temporary loss of First Amendment freedoms is a serious injury.

The injunction orders HHS and HUD to treat the disputed conditions as null and void, including certifications tied to Executive Orders 14168, 14169, and 14182, which prohibit or limit funding to programs involving DEI, gender identity, or abortion-related services. Both agencies must notify employees of the order and submit a compliance report to the court.

Judge DuBose concluded that the public interest favored granting the injunction because it preserves congressional control over spending and prevents agencies from using grant funding to impose ideological conditions. “The public has an interest in the Executive respecting the Legislature’s spending decisions,” she wrote.

The ruling is the latest in a series of federal cases examining whether executive agencies can impose new ideological or policy restrictions on congressionally funded programs without authorization. The injunction will remain in place while the case continues.