A coalition of 16 Democratic state attorneys general have filed a lawsuit against the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), claiming the agency used threats to withhold funding from state and local fair housing enforcement agencies.
In their lawsuit, the attorneys general alleged the Trump administration is illegally undermining the states’ ability to combat housing discrimination through an ideologically motivated agenda that includes unlawful conditions imposed on HUD program funding.
As an example of their complaint, the attorneys general highlighted a September 2025 HUD guidance threatening to decertify the states from program funding unless they stopped enforcing crucial protections against housing discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, language, criminal records and source of income. Those protections are part of the fair housing laws within the states.
The coalition’s lawsuit alleges that HUD’s guidance violates the Spending Clause of the US Constitution and the federal Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies implement rule changes.
“These actions are part of a broader, ongoing effort by the Trump administration to subvert the legal protections our country has put in place to combat discrimination and to tear down the hard-fought progress we have made for civil rights,” said Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul. “Courts have consistently rejected the administration’s attempts to use congressionally mandated programs to coerce states into adopting President Trump’s preferred policies. I will continue to fight for fair access to housing for all Americans and for the rule of law.”
Raoul is co-leading the coalition of states with California Attorney General Rob Bonta. Joining them in filing the lawsuit are the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
With all the concern about housing discrimination, why aren’t we hearing about any cases with that actually being true, instead of causing more cost, and more expenses, with more government bureaucracy on an issue, that probably is very minimal in today’s atmosphere? There are enough laws on the books to prosecute those who violate that.
Funny, you wonder why they are ALL democratic States..
Why no Republican run States!??
Agree with Kerry’s comments !
Maybe it’s because the Democrats work within the law. They are not the ones trying to make changes without proper laws being followed. This administration wants to make changes without due process. These are laws that are in the books.
Period
Appreciate you, Don.
The less interference by government, the lower the cost.
In general , governing officials and their party receive large payoffs to follow their rules.
In specific , the cities require percentage payoffs to even operate .
All contractors must pay to build in the cities.
If you don’t believe this, you are naive. I ,personally know this as a professional builder, contractor and engineer.
If these democrat states have embedded these rights in their state laws, then each specific state should pay to fund the oversight. The way I read this, the issue is not about the states’ fair housing laws, rather it is who is paying to defend those broader state laws. This may be another way for the democrat states to enlarge their fair housing standards to other states simply by making the federal government pay for the democrat states’ larger scope fair housing laws. I don’t see anything in the article that states the federal government won’t defend the national fair housing laws. It is all about states creating laws and just assuming that the federal government will pay for it.