National Alliance to End Homelessness v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
Case Overview
This is the merits phase of the fight over HUD's overhaul of the Continuum of Care program, the federal government's main homelessness-assistance grant stream. After a coalition led by the National Alliance to End Homelessness won a preliminary injunction in the related 2025 case, HUD's November 2025 rescission of its two-year funding notice and its replacement notices remained in dispute. The plaintiffs, homelessness organizations and local governments, challenged the new notices under the Administrative Procedure Act, pointing to a dramatic cut in permanent-housing funding and new conditions, including criteria tied to gender identity and diversity programs. The case was heard in the District of Rhode Island before Judge Mary McElroy and consolidated for decision with the states' parallel suit, State of Washington v. HUD (1:26-cv-00439).
The Facts
Facts
This 2026 suit is the merits phase of the fight over HUD's overhaul of the Continuum of Care program. After the coalition won a preliminary injunction in the related 2025 case, HUD's November 2025 rescission of its two-year funding notice and its replacement notices remained in dispute. Homelessness organizations and local governments challenged the notices, which dramatically cut permanent-housing funding and imposed new conditions, including criteria tied to gender identity and diversity programs. The case was heard in the District of Rhode Island before Judge Mary McElroy and consolidated for decision with the states' parallel suit, State of Washington v. HUD.
The Issue
Issue
Whether HUD's November 2025 and December 2025 Continuum of Care funding notices were procedurally and substantively valid under the Administrative Procedure Act, in particular whether HUD could make sweeping policy changes without public notice and comment.
The Rules
Rule
The Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to use notice-and-comment procedures for substantive rules and forbids arbitrary and capricious action; a court will set aside agency action taken without the required procedures or adequate reasoned explanation.
The Application
Analysis
On August 7, 2026, Judge McElroy granted in part and denied in part the cross-motions for summary judgment and set aside HUD's November 2025 and December 2025 funding notices as violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, holding that the agency made sweeping policy changes without the required public notice and comment. The ruling protected roughly $3 billion in Continuum of Care funding, and final judgment entered the same day.
The Conclusion
On August 7, 2026, Judge Mary McElroy (D.R.I.) granted summary judgment in part for the plaintiffs, setting aside HUD's 2026 Continuum of Care Notice of Funding Opportunity as a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act for lacking the notice-and-comment rulemaking the McKinney-Vento Act requires, and entered final judgment. The government appealed to the First Circuit. On September 24, 2026, the First Circuit vacated that judgment and remanded. After the panel signaled that the notice-and-comment claim was unlikely to succeed, the plaintiffs moved for summary vacatur and remand, and the court construed them to have abandoned and formally waived that claim, leaving no live dispute. The plaintiffs are estopped from raising the notice-and-comment claim again, and the First Circuit directed that any eventual district-court judgment dismiss it with prejudice. The district court's set-aside of the funding notice therefore no longer stands.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support