Cities, counties sue over Trump-imposed grant conditions

SEATTLE (CN) — A coalition of cities and counties sued the Trump administration in federal court on Friday over grant funding conditions the cities say are intended to coerce recipients into implementing President Donald Trump’s policy agenda.

The cities accuse the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation and the Federal Transit Administration of “usurp[ing] Congress’ power of the purse” by adding conditions that don’t pertain to the purposes of the grant programs.

The plaintiffs include three counties in Washington state — Martin Luther King, Jr., Pierce and Snohomish — as well as San Francisco County and Santa Clara County in California and the cities of Boston, Columbus and New York.

The cities and counties each received a Continuum of Care grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development this year to address urgent housing needs for people experiencing homelessness, but with new conditions, like adherence to Trump’s anti-Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies.

“The administration’s communications to federal grant recipients make clear that the agencies seek compliance with the Trump administration’s novel, incorrect, and unsupported interpretation of federal nondiscrimination law as barring any and all DEI programs,” the plaintiffs write.

The grant recipients must also agree not to use funds in a way that promotes illegal immigration, “gender ideology,” as defined in Trump’s much challenged gender ideology executive order, or elective abortion.

The plaintiffs say the conditions “contravene bedrock separation of powers principles and violate numerous other constitutional and statutory protections, including (among others) the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle, and the Fifth Amendment’s void-for-vagueness doctrine, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act.”

Trump directed the departments to incorporate all his executive orders as governing the use of Continuum of Care funds, including a directive within his executive orders for federal agency heads to include adherence to the orders in each contract or grant award. The cities say the government is overreaching.

“Neither the text of Title VI, nor any other statute or other condition enacted by Congress, prohibits recipients of federal funding from according concern to issues of diversity, equity, or inclusion,” the plaintiffs write.

If the cities and counties accept the conditions, they argue it would allow the government to threaten them with “burdensome and costly enforcement action” if they refuse to align their programs with Trump’s agenda.

“Federal grant recipients must comply with nondiscrimination and other federal laws,” the plaintiffs write. “But executive orders and letters from agency heads cannot change what these laws require under existing court decisions.”

The cities and states also say that even if the departments had the authority to alter the grant conditions, the conditions are inconsistent with the federal nondiscrimination laws that have long been a condition of funding.

For instance, the gender ideology condition would require the federal grant recipients to violate the Housing and Urban Development Department’s own regulations that mandate “equal access” to Continuum of Care programs by no longer recognizing transgender, intersex or gender diverse people.

”The definition of ‘gender ideology’ is not only demeaning, but also idiosyncratic and unscientific,” the plaintiffs say. “Further, given the expansive meaning of ‘promote,’ federal agencies have free rein to punish recipients who merely collect information on gender identity, which has long been authorized and encouraged by HUD in its binding regulations, as such information can be used to improve the quality and efficacy of homeless services.”

Similarly, the definition of “DEI” is vague under Trump’s orders, the local governments say.

“Subsequent executive agency memoranda and letters make clear that the Trump administration’s conception of what federal antidiscrimination law requires, including what constitutes a purportedly ‘illegal’ DEI program, is inconsistent with the requirements of federal nondiscrimination statutes as interpreted by the courts,” the plaintiffs write.

The Federal Transit Administration imposed similar conditions on all four of its grant programs.

Under the new conditions, federal grant recipients are left with the choice of “accepting illegal conditions that are without authority, contrary to the Constitution, and accompanied by the poison pill of heightened risk of [False Claims Act] claims, or foregoing the benefit of grant funds — paid for (at least partially) through local federal taxes — that are necessary for crucial local services.”

The funding represents a significant portion of each city and county’s total budget for homelessness services, and losing it would negatively impact residents and the communities supported by the programs.

“I have a duty to fully enforce the law and protect these important services for our residents,” King County Executive Shannon Braddock said in a statement. “That’s why we are joining other jurisdictions from around the country to ensure the administration can’t disregard congressionally approved processes and bully local governments to comply with their political agenda at the expense of being able to deliver critical services.”