Court Rules
All enforcement actions
Enforcement ActionLow RiskMultistate

States Sue HUD Over Unlawful Grant Changes Threatening Homeless Housing

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)November 25, 2025Oregon Attorney General

Summary

Civil rights and housing policy enforcement action where Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, with a coalition of 20 states and two governors, sued HUD for unlawfully changing Continuum of Care grant requirements that would slash permanent housing funding by ~70% and impose barriers like gender recognition restrictions, threatening housing stability for tens of thousands.

Remedy

Seeking a preliminary injunction to block HUD's new policy changes and restore the previous funding structure and requirements for Continuum of Care grants, which would otherwise cut approximately $39 million in Oregon housing support and create administrative chaos.

InjunctionCorrective Notice

Contract Impact

In-house legal teams should review all grant agreements, subrecipient agreements, and memoranda of understanding (MOUs) between HUD and local/regional Continuum of Care providers. Key clauses to examine include: (1) funding allocation and budget restrictions, particularly those governing the percentage of funds usable for permanent housing; (2) compliance requirements referencing federal guidelines and congressional intent; (3) non-discrimination provisions, especially regarding gender recognition; (4) service mandate clauses that condition housing on accepting services; and (5) termination or amendment procedures. Teams should assess whether the new HUD conditions violate existing terms or statutory authority and consider legal challenges to enjoin the changes, potentially seeking declaratory judgments or injunctive relief to preserve prior funding structures and 'Housing First' models.

Contract Search Terms

Continuum of Care grant agreementfunding allocation clausenon-discrimination provisionservice precondition requirementgrant compliance requirementsfederal grant guidelinessubrecipient obligationsbudget restriction clausehousing first policygrant termination clause

Violation Types

Entity Details

Entity

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

Also known as: HUD

Industry

Other

Multistate Coalition

Official Sources

Source Evidence

Entity Name
"U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)"
Event Date
"November 25, 2025"
Is Multistate
"Attorney General Dan Rayfield and a coalition of 20 other states sued the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) today"
Co Enforcers
"Joining Attorney General Rayfield in this lawsuit are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Washington and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania."
Document Urls
"https://www.doj.state.or.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/001_Cmplt.pdf"
Summary
"HUD is drastically changing its Continuum of Care grant program in violation of congressional intent by dramatically reducing the amount of grant funds that can be spent on existing permanent housing and putting new, unlawful conditions on access to the funding. These requirements include that providers only recognize two genders, mandate residents accept services as a precondition to obtain housing and punish providers in localities that do not enforce strict, anti-homeless laws."

Related Enforcement Actions

OR

No privacy enforcement target identified

The provided press release is a media release from the Oregon Department of Justice announcing a multistate press conference of attorneys general from Oregon, California, Washington, Nevada, and New York advocating for increased state resources to address antitrust enforcement gaps following reduced federal oversight. No privacy-related enforcement actions, violations, penalties, or remedies are described in the document.

OR

Trump Administration

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield led a 24-state coalition in a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The U.S. Court of International Trade granted summary judgment to the states, ruling the tariffs illegal as they did not meet the statutory requirement of “large and serious balance-of-payment deficits.” The court invalidated the 10 percent tariffs on most global products, barring their enforcement.

OR

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Consumer protection and civil rights lawsuit filed by Oregon AG and 20 other states against the U.S. Department of Agriculture over unlawful funding conditions that coerce states into complying with policies unrelated to nutrition programs. The conditions relate to immigration, DEI, and gender identity, and are alleged to violate the Spending Clause and Administrative Procedure Act. The suit seeks to block these conditions to protect billions in funding for programs like SNAP, WIC, and school lunches that serve vulnerable populations.

OR

Trump Administration

Health enforcement action: Attorney General Rayfield led a coalition of 22 states and D.C. to secure a federal court order blocking the Trump Administration from threatening to cut off Medicare and Medicaid funding to healthcare providers that offer gender-affirming care to youth with gender dysphoria. The court ruled the administration's actions unlawful, protecting access to care and upholding the right to make personal healthcare decisions.

OR

Nexstar Media Group, Inc. and Tegna Inc.

Antitrust enforcement action where Oregon AG filed a lawsuit to block the $6.2 billion merger of Nexstar and Tegna, alleging it violates Clayton Act Section 7 by substantially lessening competition in broadcasting, which could harm local news and raise consumer prices.

OR

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental enforcement action where Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, along with a coalition of states and cities, filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA's unlawful rescission of the 2009 Endangerment Finding on greenhouse gas emissions. The challenge argues that the rescission ignores scientific evidence and legal precedent, threatening public health and environmental protections.