Warner, Colleagues File Amicus Brief in Lawsuit Against Trump’s Department of Housing and Urban Development for Attacking Fair Housing Program

WASHINGTON —Today, U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) joined Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) led their 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 filed 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. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Cory Booker submitted the brief 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 and were joined in submitting it by Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), 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). The senators begin the brief , “Congress intended 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,” they argue . The senators conclude , “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.” Full text of the argument in the brief can be viewed here . ###