A U.S. district judge in Boston enjoined the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s restructuring of a multiyear grant program after finding the agency failed to offer a reasoned explanation for sweeping changes that would cut most nonprofits out of funding.
Judge Myong J. Joun issued a temporary order blocking HUD’s July plan to halt Private Enforcement Initiative and multi-year Fair Housing Initiatives Program grants.
The court found HUD did not provide an adequate, data-based justification for the restructuring and criticized conditions HUD sought to attach to funding, such as bans on using funds for certain topics.
The ruling came in litigation brought by the National Fair Housing Alliance and the Massachusetts Fair Housing Center, which argued the changes would bar organizations that have long enforced the Fair Housing Act.
# What happened
# The agency action being challenged
In July, HUD announced it would stop allocating congressionally appropriated funds for private enforcement initiatives and multi-year grants under the Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP). Historically, FHIP awarded more than 100 grants annually to nonprofit fair-housing organizations, commonly in amounts between $75,000 and $425,000.
Under the new plan, HUD proposed reallocating $46 million of $56 million appropriated for fiscal 2025 to just five grants, including a $25 million award to a law school. The remaining $10 million could be directed to state or local agencies. HUD also sought to impose new conditions on grant recipients, including restrictions on using funds to support specified topics described by the agency.
# Why the court blocked the changes
U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun found HUD failed to provide a reasoned, evidence-based explanation for the significant shift in funding structure. The judge said the agency's summary justification was short on form and substance and did not show reliance on relevant data when crafting the new approach.
# Legal posture and immediate effect
# What HUD said and what the court said about it
HUD argued it had discretion to modernize the program and to attach conditions to funding in order to broaden participation. The agency presented an affidavit to explain its choices. The court rejected that explanation as insufficient and impermissible as the primary rationale for changing longstanding funding practice.
# Practical implications
For now, long-standing nonprofit grantees remain eligible for the sort of multi-year grants they historically received, pending further rulings. The blocked plan would have concentrated most available funds into a small number of large grants and new recipients, reducing federal support for community-based enforcement and investigations.
# Next steps to watch
The litigation will proceed in federal court. The agency could attempt to formulate a more detailed, data-backed justification if it seeks to pursue program changes, or Congress could act to clarify funding priorities. The plaintiffs will press their claim that HUD's move violates administrative law and undermines statutory goals set when FHIP was created in 1987.
The department’s attempted overhaul of its grant program would “cut out more fair housing organizations than they include,” according to the ruling.
Judge Myong J. Joun of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Wednesday granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The order blocks HUD’s plan to halt Private Enforcement Initiatives (PEI) under the Fair Housing Act, removing
HUD’s funding cut rationale “does not add up,” the judge said when blocking the plan. Plus, Fed gov. responds to fraud claims; more layoffs at Fannie Mae.
U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang ruled that the Trump administration's move to divert funding and cancel a plan to move the FBI to Maryland was "arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with law."
Massachusetts judge slaps HUD with restraining order over Fair Housing changes Zachary Whalen Fri, 08/28/2026 - 07:00 Primary Image Primary Image Caption In the ruling, Judge Myong Joun wrote that the HUD’s justification for its changes lacked “informed reasoning or explanation.” The U.S. District Court of Massachusett
Loading more related stories...
Open the app view to save this story, compare related coverage, and continue from the same source.