National Alliance to End Homelessness v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (D.R.I.)
Case Overview
In November 2025, the Department of Housing and Urban Development abruptly rescinded a two-year Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Continuum of Care program, the main federal grant stream for homelessness assistance, and replaced it with a new notice that sharply cut renewal funding for permanent-housing projects and attached new eligibility conditions. A coalition of homelessness organizations and local governments, led by the National Alliance to End Homelessness and joined by cities and counties including Boston, Cambridge, Tucson, and Santa Clara, along with Rhode Island's Crossroads, sued HUD and Secretary Scott Turner in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island before Judge Mary McElroy. They argued the rescission and the new conditions were unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and exceeded HUD's authority, threatening to disrupt housing for tens of thousands of people in the middle of the funding cycle.
The Facts
Facts
In November 2025, HUD abruptly rescinded a two-year Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for the Continuum of Care (CoC) program, the primary federal grant stream for homelessness assistance, and issued a replacement notice on a compressed timeline. The new notice sharply cut renewal funding for core permanent-housing projects and added new eligibility conditions. A coalition led by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, joined by cities and counties including Boston, Cambridge, Tucson, and Santa Clara, along with Rhode Island's Crossroads, sued HUD and Secretary Scott Turner in the District of Rhode Island.
The Issue
Issue
Whether HUD's rescission of the original two-year NOFO and its replacement notice, with new conditions and reduced renewal funding, were unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act, and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary relief preserving the original funding notice while the case proceeds.
The Rules
Rule
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a reviewing court sets aside agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with law, and significant policy changes require reasoned decisionmaking and, where applicable, notice and comment. A preliminary injunction requires a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and the public interest favor relief.
The Application
Analysis
In December 2025, Judge Mary McElroy found the plaintiffs likely to succeed and granted a preliminary injunction. The court stayed HUD's rescission of the original two-year notice, enjoined the new notice and its challenged conditions, and ordered HUD to preserve the status quo and process fiscal year 2025 CoC renewals, along with reporting requirements. HUD reopened the original notice for renewals in response, but it appealed to the First Circuit and moved to dissolve or stay the injunction; those motions were denied.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support