What legal challenges have been filed against the July 24, 2025 executive order on homelessness and institutionalization?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Three categories of legal action have already emerged in response to the July 24, 2025 executive order on homelessness: multi‑state litigation challenging federal funding and HUD policy changes, litigation from homelessness‑sector groups contesting HUD program guidance tied to the order, and a wave of threatened or anticipated lawsuits from civil‑rights and advocacy organizations — even where formal complaints have not yet been filed [1] [2] [3].
1. Multi‑state lawsuit over HUD funding shifts: New Jersey and 19 states
A high‑profile lawsuit was filed by New Jersey together with 19 other states challenging the administration’s reversal of HUD funding priorities that flowed from the executive order, arguing the agency’s shift away from Housing First and toward transitional, conditional programs unlawfully upended longstanding grant rules and harmed vulnerable people who obtained housing through prior federal support [1]. Reporting ties that suit directly to the administration’s post‑EO remodel of the Continuum of Care and related HUD funding notices, which states say provoked confusion and threatened existing housing stability for people who had been rehoused [1].
2. Sectoral challenge: National Alliance to End Homelessness sues over HUD solicitation
Veteran homelessness‑service organizations moved from rhetoric to litigation: the National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH) filed suit shortly after HUD issued a Notice of Funding Opportunity for the “CoC Builds” program that incorporated priorities shaped by the executive order, contending that HUD’s new funding terms violated statutory and administrative requirements and would effectively implement the EO’s punitive approach through grantmaking [2]. That complaint targets a concrete post‑EO action by HUD, and represents a strategic avenue for challengers to block implementation of the order’s programmatic effects without needing a direct injunction against the presidential directive itself [2].
3. Local governments and advocates — filings, sign‑ons, and looming challenges
Cities and states that had litigated prior Trump administration directives signed onto earlier suits and remain positioned to sue again, though reporting indicates uncertainty about immediate filings against this particular executive order: Oregon, Multnomah County and the city of Portland previously joined lawsuits against earlier EOs, but it was unclear in late July 2025 whether they would file new complaints tied to the July 24 order [4]. National advocacy groups including the ACLU, National Homelessness Law Center, NAACP Legal Defense Fund and others issued condemnations and signaled legal pushback, with some organizations explicitly forecasting or preparing litigation to stop enforcement of EO‑driven policies [5] [6] [7] [3].
4. Legal theories being pressed and countervailing legal posture
Litigants have framed claims around statutory and constitutional lines: challenges to HUD’s funding realignment argue administrative‑procedure violations and misuse of discretionary grant rules, while disability and civil‑rights groups warn that conditioning housing on treatment or institutionalization could violate the Fair Housing Act and federal disability protections [1] [8]. At the same time, defenders of the EO and some legal analysts point to presidential authority over federal grant priorities and note the Supreme Court’s prior willingness to recognize broad executive discretion in setting policy; past rulings upholding presidential authority in homelessness‑adjacent cases complicate plaintiffs’ path [2]. Reporting makes clear both prongs exist in public discourse, though it does not catalogue every legal claim or court docket entry beyond the major suits reported [2] [1].
5. The litigation landscape ahead and practical impacts
Beyond the suits already filed, advocates and providers expect a cascade of legal challenges as HUD and other agencies issue implementation guidance and Notices of Funding Opportunity enforcing EO priorities, because litigation can halt or delay those administrative steps even if courts ultimately defer to the executive branch [3] [2]. Meanwhile, advocates argue the EO’s directives to condition federal dollars and to pursue institutionalization will spur more lawsuits grounded in civil‑rights, disability law, and administrative procedure, but public reporting at the time leaves open which jurisdictions and groups will convert that intent into formal complaints [3] [6].