Judge Blocks Trump Admin’s Conditions on Domestic Violence Grants

A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from conditioning domestic violence-related grants on things like whether a program recipient promotes gender ideology or diversity, equity, and inclusion frameworks.

In his Aug. 8 opinion, U.S. District of Rhode Island Judge William Smith refrained from saying the new conditions were substantively invalid, but decided the administration hadn’t demonstrated that it went through the proper process.

More specifically, he said the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act by implementing the conditions through a “wholly under-reasoned and arbitrary process,” noting, for example, that it failed to consider the impact of including vague and confusing language in the conditions.

Smith’s order was a preliminary injunction, meaning that it serves as a temporary block while litigation proceeds. In his 27-page opinion, he stated that without relief, the administration’s actions “could result in the disruption of important and, in some cases, life-saving services to victims of sexual assault and domestic violence.”

The lawsuit came after the Justice Department’s Office on Violence Against Women, which administers the grants, set out new conditions earlier this year. It was one of many challenging the administration’s actions related to funding. According to the Justice Department, the Office of Violence Against Women had analyzed the grants in light of multiple executive orders—including those on gender and diversity, equity, and inclusion—from President Donald Trump.

The office set up a series of “out-of-scope activities” or those that can’t be financed by the grants. According to court documents, those included “inculcating or promoting gender ideology,” “promoting or facilitating discriminatory programs or ideology,” programs that discourage collaboration with law enforcement, and initiatives that prioritize illegal immigrants over U.S. citizens.

A group of domestic violence coalitions sued, alleging multiple violations of federal law and the Constitution. Smith’s order focused on an alleged violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and declined to rule on the constitutional issues.

The Justice Department made several arguments, including that the case belonged in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims rather than a federal district court like Smith’s. Echoing arguments made in prior cases, the Justice Department pointed to the Tucker Act, which is a federal law granting the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over contract disputes with the federal government.

Another lawsuit involving this defense reached the Supreme Court earlier this year after a court blocked Trump’s attempt to freeze grants from the Department of Education. The Supreme Court lifted that block in a more temporary order. In an unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court said that the administration was likely to succeed in showing the federal district court in that case lacked jurisdiction.

Smith indicated this case was different than others because it focused on the conditions for grant funding.

“The court finds that the Tucker Act does not cover challenges to grant funding conditions,” he said. “Importantly, the Coalitions do not challenge conditions, terms, or agency action related to grants that the Office [on Violence Against Women] has previously awarded them; they object to the challenged conditions only to the extent that they are or will be placed upon grants for which they seek to apply.”

The Justice Department also argued that the grant conditions weren’t the type of agency action that could be blocked under the Administrative Procedure Act. Smith disagreed and rejected the idea that the grant conditions were protected by the agency’s discretion.