The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), passed in 1994, established a federal commitment to supporting survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault by funding critical services through grants administered by the Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women (OVW). For decades, state coalitions have relied on these grants to provide trauma-informed care, emergency housing, legal assistance, and more.
Under the Trump-Vance administration, the Department of Justice (DOJ) imposed unlawful new conditions on VAWA grant recipients, requiring them to certify they are not supporting and will not support diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility programs, discuss “gender ideology,” or serve undocumented immigrants, even when those services are required by law or essential to survivor care.
These unlawful policy conditions force organizations to choose between losing critical funding or facing severe legal and financial risks under the False Claims Act.
Seventeen nonprofit state coalitions, represented by Democracy Forward, DeLuca, Weizenbaum, Barry & Revens, Ltd., Jacobson Lawyers Group PLLC, ACLU Foundation of RI, and National Women’s Law Center, filed suit to stop the DOJ’s overreach.
The filing argues that the new requirements are unconstitutional, violate the Administrative Procedure Act, and target the justice system, including the LGBTQIA+ community, immigrants, and racial minorities.
Since the case was filed, the court has already granted significant relief to the plaintiffs and the communities they serve.
On August 8, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, blocking the U.S. Department of Justice from enforcing key portions of the challenged grant restrictions while the case proceeds.
The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on several of their claims, including that the DOJ’s new conditions on VAWA funding were likely unlawful. The ruling prevents the government from imposing restrictions that would have forced service providers to alter or limit how they support survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault.
In particular, the court halted enforcement of conditions that threatened to:
- restrict access to life-saving services for survivors, including marginalized communities,
- impose vague and unsupported requirements on grantees, and
- condition critical funding on compliance with policies that conflict with federal law.
This preliminary relief ensures that domestic violence and sexual assault service providers can continue delivering essential services without disruption while the litigation continues.
Timeline
-
Lawsuit was filed
-
Motion for preliminary injunction filed
-
The District Court of Rhode Island granted the preliminary injunction
-
We filed an amended complaint adding new plaintiffs and challenging a new OJP condition requiring grantees to certify that they don’t do “illegal DEI.”
-
We filed a motion for partial summary judgment.
-
We filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.
