In federal suit, Mass. Fair Housing asks judge not to dissolve recently reinstated funding (2025)

SPRINGFIELD — Four fair housing organizations recently stripped of federal grants, which were later reinstated by judge’s order, are not backing down from their fight to maintain the funding, according to court filings.

This comes just weeks after a federal judge reinstated Fair Housing Initiatives Program grants at 66 fair housing organizations across the country, including the Massachusetts Fair Housing Center in Holyoke. The grants, which were slashed on Feb. 27, provide key financial support to organizations that assist people who believe they have experienced housing discrimination.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Government Efficiency filed a motion requesting the dissolution of a temporary restraining order that halted the government’s stoppage of the funding pipeline.

Judge Richard G. Stearns of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts in Boston told the parties a few weeks ago that all of the defense’s arguments were addressed in a First Circuit Court of Appeals decision filed in California on March 21, involving the U.S. Department of Education. He used that case as precedent to make an order reinstating the grants on March 25.

The temporary restraining order is in place until May 16.

The government states in its argument, a six-page memorandum filed on April 7, that because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled a stay in the temporary restraining order in the DOE case, the “court should dissolve the (temporary restraining order) now that the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.”

“The Supreme Court has indicated that (the) plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits,” the government’s memorandum says. It is also requesting a stay of the proceedings, pending the outcome of the appeal in the DOE case.

The government is being represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Julian Canzoneri, who could not be immediately reached for comment Friday.

In their 22-page opposition to dissolving the temporary restraining order filed Friday, the plaintiffs argue that, while the DOE case is similar, there are two key differences: “Plaintiffs face imminent and irreparable harm if the TRO is dissolved or stayed,” and the lawsuit is not “based on a contract with the United States.”

Without the temporary restraining order, the plaintiffs say the effects would be deeply harmful. The ripples already were demonstrated after the congressionally allocated funds were initially suspended between Feb. 27 and March 25.

The temporary loss of funding in that first month “forced (the) plaintiffs to lay off staff, turn away clients, break leases, cancel events and map out how long they could survive.”

This is unlike the DOE appeal, in which the eight states that sued the government “would make up for the lost federal funding with their own resources and keep the programs going,” the plaintiffs’ argument states.

“Plaintiffs have no stopgap funding whatsoever, and certainly not the necessary ‘financial wherewithal’ to survive long enough to recoup lost funds at the end of the case or in a different forum,” the argument states.

The fair housing organizations also argue that HUD’s opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order was weak.

“It would be anomalous to call run-of-the-mill compliance with the (Fair Housing Initiatives Program) statute and (Office of Management and Budget) regulations an injury under any circumstances, but it is particularly unpersuasive here,” said the recent filing.

The plaintiffs assert that HUD’s action, in terminating the grants, was inconsistent with federal law. The court, the filing says, should make a determination not only based on the California case but on a “fact- and circumstance-specific assessment of jurisdiction in this case,” court documents state.

The plaintiffs’ second argument discusses “contract issues” brought in this lawsuit.

The plaintiffs say that their only allegation against HUD is that its decision to terminate the grants violated federal administrative procedure law, because it was “arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law.”

“If (the) plaintiffs are entitled to the reinstatement of their grant agreements, it is because of this (Administrative Procedure Act) violation, not because of any allegations of breach or issue of contract interpretation,” the filing says.

The four fair housing organizations are not seeking monetary relief, they say. “They seek equitable relief to reestablish the grantor/grantee relationship, including the procedures and obligations appurtenant thereto,” the filing says.

Lila Miller of Relman Colfax, a law firm in Washington D.C., could not be immediately reached Friday for a comment.

The plaintiffs are requesting oral arguments against the government.

Other plaintiffs in the suit include the Intermountain Fair Housing Council in Boise, Idaho; the Fair Housing Council of South Texas; and the Fair Housing Center for Rights and Research Inc. in Cleveland, Ohio.