The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) defended new restrictions on grants serving survivors of domestic and sexual violence. A federal judge minced no words in finding the agency’s explanations inadequate.
On September 29, 2026, U.S. District Judge Melissa R. DuBose granted partial summary judgment to a coalition of 25 nonprofit organizations in their lawsuit against the Justice Department, setting aside the agency’s demands imposed on potential grant recipients under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). She ruled that the DOJ’s new provisions, which restricted organizations by banning policies that included gender ideology and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), were arbitrary and capricious and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Having twice found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their APA claims, Judge DuBose reviewed DOJ’s administrative record at summary judgment. She considered the agency’s explanations when it adopted the conditions, rather than rationales offered afterward. Citing DOJ’s ‘lackluster—and at times nonexistent—explanation of their decision,’ she set aside the conditions. She declined to issue a permanent injunction, finding that setting aside the conditions was sufficient relief.
New Strings Attached
Under the Spending Clause, Congress is responsible for funding VAWA, which was allocated $720 million for the 2026 fiscal year, an increase of $7 million from the previous year. While a large portion of VAWA funds are given to state agencies, some of the grants are directly disbursed to domestic abuse programs that include transitional housing assistance, legal aid services, and prevention programs that target boys and young men (despite its name, VAWA protects domestic violence, sexual assault, and violent crime victims of all genders).
Congress tasked the DOJ with administering the grant programs at issue through the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) and the Office of Justice Programs (OJP). In 2025, DOJ added new funding restrictions, which the nonprofits challenged in court. According to the court’s summary, the challenged conditions prohibited using grant funds for the following activities:
- Promoting or facilitating programs that engage in illegal diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives
- Promoting or advancing ideas on gender ideology that, pursuant to Executive Order, the current Administration disfavors
- Promoting or encouraging the violation of federal immigration law
- Employing the use of programs that discourage collaboration with law enforcement
- Providing initiatives that prioritize noncitizens receiving supportive services over United States citizens
- Advancing activities or programs in contravention of Executive Orders
- Engaging in activities that emphasize the systemic social justice components of domestic violence or sexual assault rather than their portrayal as violations of criminal law
- Engaging in awareness campaigns that “do not lead to tangible improvements in prevention, victim safety, or offender accountability”
- Serving individuals who are either “removable aliens” or “unlawfully present in the United States”
The plaintiffs also alleged that DOJ sought concessions from applicants that would lower the government’s burden in future False Claims Act proceedings if it determined that grant funds had been used in violation of the conditions.
Led by the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 25 nonprofits filed suit against the DOJ to invalidate the new restrictions. They alleged that DOJ exceeded its statutory authority, acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and imposed unconstitutional conditions. Their claims also included violations of separation of powers, the Spending Clause, and the First and Fifth Amendments, along with executive conduct exceeding lawful authority.
The DOJ fired back with a cross-motion seeking to uphold the new conditions. It argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing, that the conditions were not a “final agency action,” and that the agency operated with discretion beyond the court’s ability to review.
Judge DuBose rejected those arguments, relying on the reasoning in her earlier decisions.
I Do Not Think That Word Means What You Think It Means
The DOJ maintained that it had not acted arbitrarily and capriciously, insisting that it did more than enough analysis of the new conditions before release. It insisted that the alleged “confusion, upheaval, and uncertainty” the plaintiffs claim resulted from the DOJ’s new conditions didn’t exist.
That argument didn’t move Judge DuBose.
She described the changes as a ‘sweeping and chaotic overhaul’ of the previous grant requirements. For most conditions, she found no analysis explaining DOJ’s decision-making process or how the restrictions would affect applicants. DOJ had offered contemporaneous explanations for the gender-ideology and immigration-enforcement conditions, but those explanations failed to meaningfully address the potential adverse effects of compliance, she found.
Other Questions Unresolved
Judge DuBose also rejected the DOJ’s request to limit the relief to the plaintiffs, noting that doing so would be unfair to other grant applicants, who would still be subject to the grant requirements while competing with the plaintiffs for the same limited pool of money.
But the DOJ did leave with some consolation. Judge DuBose denied the plaintiffs’ motion to permanently enjoin the DOJ from imposing similar conditions in the future. Because she found that the DOJ’s inadequate explanations were enough to decide the case, she did not rule on whether the conditions exceeded the agency’s statutory authority or violated the Constitution. So the DOJ may try again.
