A federal court in Rhode Island has halted the Trump administration from enforcing newly imposed conditions on federal grants for domestic and sexual violence programs. Judge Melissa DuBose issued a preliminary injunction on 10 October 2025 after reviewing a particular lawsuit brought by 17 statewide coalitions challenging the funding restrictions.
Disputed conditions originated from both the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Health and Human Services. The second Trump administration sought to restrict federal grant access for those involved in diversity, equity, and inclusion or for providers of information or assistance on abortion services and reproductive care.
The plaintiffs argued that these violated the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. Their legal filings claimed the government was coercing nonprofit coalitions to alter speech, limit critical services, and adjust organizational priorities in exchange for access to congressionally appropriated funds intended to protect vulnerable populations.
Judge DuBose noted the likelihood of irreparable harm if the conditions were enforced because programs for survivors of sexual assault, intimate partner abuse, and homelessness could be disrupted. This is especially true in rural and underserved communities. Her ruling emphasized that funding stability is directly connected to service continuity.
The preliminary injunction applies not only to the 17 statewide anti-domestic and sexual violence coalitions but also to every current and prospective grantee under the affected programs. The ruling temporarily preserves access to federal support without the policy requirements while the broader case proceeds through additional hearings and governmental responses.
Organizations like Democracy Forward and the National Women’s Law Center welcomed the decision. They underscored the fact that groups assisting domestic violence survivors, LGBTQ youth, and marginalized families would otherwise have been forced to scale back or eliminate their outreach, housing assistance, and counseling programs.
Authorities defending the restrictions had argued that the administration was using lawful authority to attach conditions that reflect national policy priorities. The court rejected those assertions and concluded that reverting to earlier grant guidelines would not impose immediate harm on the government. Further arguments will be scheduled in the coming months.