Gillibrand, Colleagues File Amicus Brief In Lawsuit Against Trump’s Department Of Housing And Urban Development For Attacking Fair Housing Program

U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) Subcommittee, joined 20 of her Senate colleagues in submitting an amicus brief supporting a federal judge’s ruling that the Trump administration’s Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) unlawfully restricted funding to groups that investigate and enforce laws against housing discrimination. The amicus brief argues that HUD’s unprecedented attempt to direct $46 million away from fair housing organizations – while diverting an additional $10 million to government agencies with separate appropriations – has no lawful justification and would harm the nation’s fair housing enforcement infrastructure. “Fair housing organizations work every day to protect New Yorkers from discrimination when they rent or buy a home,” said Senator Gillibrand. “Without the federal funding Congress appropriated, these groups could be forced to shut their doors, allowing housing discrimination to go unchecked and leaving families with nowhere to turn. I am proud to join this amicus brief and will keep fighting to make sure the Trump administration follows the law and delivers the funds as Congress intended.” The senators began the brief, “Congress intended [the Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP)] to foster a nationwide network of private organizations, like Plaintiffs, that can aid the federal government in uncovering and eliminating housing discrimination. Since Congress piloted FHIP in 1988 and codified it in 1992, FHIP has consistently sustained private fair housing organizations through three grant streams: the Private Enforcement Initiative (‘PEI’) to support investigative and enforcement activities; the Education and Outreach Initiative (‘EOI’); and the Fair Housing Organization Initiative (‘FHOI’) to build organizational capacity. With this funding, private organizations handle most housing discrimination complaints and enforcement nationwide.” “HUD’s July 2, 2026 Notices of Funding Opportunity (‘NOFOs’) endanger fair housing organizations and their vital work. The NOFOs deviate from FHIP’s authorizing statute, decades of FHIP practice, and Congress’s intent. For the first time since FHIP’s codification in 1992, the FY2025 NOFOs provide no new awards for PEI or EOI—the lifeblood of fair housing organizations—nor do they fulfill existing multi-year PEI awards. Instead, HUD attempts to direct $46 million—the vast majority of funds—away from existing qualified organizations in favor of organizations with no experience in fair housing enforcement, while diverting the remaining $10 million to governmental agencies for which Congress separately appropriated. These unprecedented actions have no lawful justification and would seriously harm the nation’s fair housing enforcement infrastructure. The district court rightly vacated HUD’s unlawful notices and directed funding to flow under the prior framework. HUD’s request to stay that well-founded order should be denied,” the senators argued. The senators concluded, “The Doles Memo’s stated aims are misleading and contrary to FHIP’s purposes as well. It claims the FY2025 NOFOs will ‘expand geographic coverage,’ ‘broaden’ expertise, and ‘strengthen the long-term resilience of the national fair housing infrastructure.’ HUD’s NOFOs do the opposite—losing geographic coverage, expertise, and organizational resilience by concentrating FHIP funding in a handful of grants that existing organizations cannot receive. Worse, the Doles Memo treats fair housing organizations like maligned welfare recipients—charging them with ‘perpetual dependence’ on federal funding. FHIP’s goal always has been to sustain these organizations as a vital organ of the fair housing enforcement system, particularly in areas underserved without federal resources. HUD’s NOFOs, if unaddressed, would set fair housing enforcement back decades. Defendants’ Motion for Stay should be denied.” The brief was submitted to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in the case of Massachusetts Fair Housing Center; National Fair Housing Alliance v. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Senator Gillibrand was joined by Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Mark Warner (D-VA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Edward Markey (D-MA), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tina Smith (D-MN), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD). Senator Gillibrand has repeatedly held the Trump administration and HUD accountable for their failures on fair housing: In August, she wrote to HUD urging the Trump administration to immediately rescind the FY25 and FY26 Notices of Funding Opportunity for the Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP), which are the subject of this court case, and instead re-issue NOFOs consistent with the law and congressional intent. Earlier this year, she secured $86 million for fair housing programs, including $56 million for FHIP , when negotiating the Fiscal Year 2026 funding bill to support the critical work fair housing organizations do in New York and across the country. The Trump administration proposed eliminating FHIP entirely. Last year, she called out HUD for its failures to enforce our nation’s fair housing laws – a letter HUD has still not responded to nearly one year later. Last year, she led Senate Democrats in pushing HUD to halt plans to overhaul a key homelessness program, which could have forced nearly 200,000 people back onto the streets. In May, she called out HUD Secretary Scott Turner over his failure to show measurable progress on housing affordability and to release HUD’s long-overdue report on homelessness data. Two weeks later, the administration released the report . Full text of the argument in the brief can be viewed here . ###