Judge critiques DEI-linked limits on public housing grants

OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) — A federal judge on Wednesday pressed attorneys over vague conditions tying public housing funds to compliance with diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar listened to claims over Zoom from attorneys representing various housing authorities — including the Housing Authority of the County of San Diego and the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles — seeking a preliminary injunction on President Donald Trump’s executive order withholding money from federal agencies until they stop implementing DEI conditions and how it relates to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Attorney Ryan McGinley-Stempel, who represents the housing authorities except San Francisco, asserted the language of complying with grant conditions to access public housing and services are “vague” and “without guidance,” as to what could be a condition for refusal of public housing or what could be considered as “promotion” of diversity, equity, inclusion, immigration, gender ideology and elective abortion, in regard to those already within public housing or public housing employees.

The federal government, said McGinley-Stempel, “put a Hobbesian choice to forgo this housing funding and leave my clients to guess what is prohibited.”

“Does it mean employees indicating their preferred pronouns in their email signatures?” McGinley-Stempel wondered as he gave Tigar a few hypotheticals to contemplate. “Does it apply to housing somebody that does not regard their gender the same as their biological sex they are born with?”

“What does promote mean?” he continued to ask. “How are we to understand the statute and this condition specifically?”

Jevechius Bernardoni, representing defendants HUD and HUD Secretary Scott Turner, said anyone unclear about what may qualify as a condition can check with their local housing office.

“Who knows what diversity means?” asked Tigar. “That’s the problem.”

Tigar said he was inclined to agree the language is unclear and gave Bernardoni a few examples, including one questioning if a sign put up in a common public housing area with an “all-gender restroom” notice would qualify as being noncompliant.

“I don’t know how that would be interpreted,” Bernardoni said. He referred to the idea that a person could seek clarity through the HUD office and argued the conditions are consistent with federal law.

McGinley-Stempel rebutted Bernardoni’s claims by noting the government’s position continues to be vague, saying it will “implement and administer grants consistent with applicable law” as a way to “avoid the kind of scrutiny that is needed here” and said the government’s idea to check with local offices is “impractical on a day-to-day basis for every little operational decision.”

Tigar issued a temporary restraining order on Oct. 18 that will lapse on Nov. 14.

“Plaintiffs allege they will suffer irreparable harm because they ‘are being compelled to agree to vague, ambiguous, and unlawful conditions at the risk of incurring financial penalties and legal liability, or giving up funds already awarded and, in many cases, accounted for in budget and project planning,’” Tigar said when he issued the temporary restraining order.

He said at the end of the hearing he would take the arguments under consideration.

“Evaluating circumstances and legal arguments very similar to those at issue here, courts across the country have granted injunctive relief to halt the enforcement of grant conditions requiring compliance with the President’s Executive Orders and related restrictions,” he said in the temporary restraining order.