Letitia James

Nov. 25 (UPI) — A coalition of 19 attorneys general and two state governors sued the Trump administration on Tuesday over changes to funding allocations and conditions at the Department of Housing and Urban Development that they say threaten thousands of formerly homeless people and families with eviction.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island, alleges new restrictions and funding cuts announced by HUD earlier this month to its Continuum of Care program threaten housing stability and disadvantage services for people experiencing homelessness, including those with mental disabilities and substance use disorders.

The Democratic-led states allege that the changes have thrown CoC into “chaos” and that HUD was holding congressionally approved funds and vulnerable people hostage.

“Communities across the country depend on Continuum of Care funds to provide housing and other resources to our most vulnerable neighbors,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement.

“These funds help keep tens of thousands of people from sleeping on the streets every night. I will not allow this administration to cut off these funds and put vital housing and support services at risk.”

Founded by Congress in 1987, the CoC program provides states, local governments and nonprofits with funds to provide housing and support services to those experiencing homelessness.

Earlier this month, HUD Secretary Scott Turner criticized the CoC for prioritizing funds for organizations with Housing First policies, which provide housing to individuals without preconditions, such as sobriety or minimum income.

Turner said the policy ran counter to the department’s objective of selecting the most effective and innovative programs, and it would be instituting changes, including requiring that 70% of projects to be selected through competition.

In a statement, HUD said 90% of CoC awards went to support projects with “failed” Housing First ideologies, which the department said “encourages dependence on endless government handouts while neglecting to address the root causes of homelessness, including illicit drugs and mental health.”

Changes to be implemented are to increase competition for grants, advance public safety, focus on self-sufficiency, encourage personal accountability and crack down on gender ideology, use of taxpayer dollars on undocumented migrants and diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

“Our philosophy for addressing the homelessness crisis will now define success not by dollars spent or housing units filled, but by how many people achieve long-term self-sufficiency and recovery,” Turner said.

In their lawsuit, the states allege that the changes mean only 30% of CoC funds may be used for permanent housing, a drop from roughly 90%.

HUD has also revised the scoring system used to grant awards. According to the lawsuit, the previous system encouraged CoCs to address needs of minority groups, such as the LGBTQ+ community, and the new changes arbitrarily disadvantage programs that provide supportive services for mental disabilities and substance use disorder

The policies also bar funding for applicants that acknowledge the existence of transgender and gender-diverse people and penalize homeless-service providers that pursue approaches to homelessness that do not align with the Trump administration.

In total, the changes will threaten housing stability and disadvantage services for people with mental disabilities and substance use disorder, the lawsuit states.

“This program has proven to be effective at getting Americans off the streets, yet the Trump administration is now attempting to illegally slash its funding,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. “Those caring for our unhoused neighbors need the federal government’s continued support. Absent judicial intervention, the Trump administration’s actions would only worsen the homelessness crisis.”

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Lawyers for two of President Trump’s foes who have been charged by the Justice Department asked a judge on Thursday to dismiss the cases against them, saying the prosecutor who secured the indictments was illegally installed in the role.

U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie didn’t immediately rule from the bench but said she expects to decide by Thanksgiving on challenges to Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The requests are part of multiprong efforts by former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James to get their cases dismissed before trial.

At issue during Thursday’s arguments are the complex constitutional and statutory rules governing the appointment of the nation’s U.S. attorneys, who function as top federal prosecutors in Justice Department offices across the country.

The role is typically filled by lawyers who have been nominated by a president and confirmed by the Senate. Attorneys general do have the authority to get around that process by naming an interim U.S. attorney who can serve for 120 days, but lawyers for Comey and James note that once that period expires, the law gives federal judges of that district exclusive say over who can fill the vacancy.

But that’s not what happened in this instance.

After then-interim U.S. attorney Erik Siebert resigned in September while facing Trump administration pressure to bring charges against Comey and James, Attorney General Pam Bondi, at Trump’s public urging, installed Halligan to the role.

Siebert had been appointed by Bondi in January to serve as interim U.S. attorney. Trump in May announced his intention to nominate him and judges in the Eastern District unanimously agreed after his 120-day period expired that he should be retained in the role. But after the Trump administration effectively pushed him out in September, the Justice Department again opted to make an interim appointment in place of the courts, something defense lawyers say it was not empowered under the law to do.

Prosecutors in the cases say that the law does not explicitly prevent successive appointments of interim U.S. attorneys by the Justice Department and that, even if Halligan’s appointment is deemed invalid, the proper fix is not the dismissal of the indictment.

Comey has pleaded not guilty to charges of making a false statement and obstructing Congress, and James has pleaded not guilty to mortgage fraud allegations. Their lawyers have separately argued that the prosecutions are improperly vindictive and motivated by the president’s personal animus toward their clients, and should therefore be dismissed.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

Nov. 13 (UPI) — A federal judge was set to hear arguments Thursday that interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan was improperly in her role when she brought charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Attorneys for Comey and James are attending a rare joint hearing to put their case before U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie in Virginia. Currie traveled to Virginia from her normal jurisdiction, the District of South Carolina, to hear the case to avoid a potential conflict of interest, NBC News reported.

The attorneys have argued that Halligan, a former personal attorney for President Donald Trump, is improperly in her position as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Trump handpicked her to replace Erik Siebert, whom the president ousted in September after he refused to bring charges against people considered political opponents of his. Siebert had also served in the U.S. attorney position on an interim basis since May.

Within days of being named interim U.S. attorney, Halligan brought charges against Comey on obstruction charges related to the Russian collusion investigation and, separately, against James on charges she committed bank fraud related to a property she purchased in 2023.

Under federal law, U.S. attorney posts may be served on an interim basis for only 120 days without a Senate confirmation.

James and Comey’s attorneys said that 120 days had already passed under Siebert’s leadership by the time Halligan was named to the post in September. Additionally, they argue that 120-day timer does not reset when a new interim U.S. attorney is named, CNN reported.

Currie’s ruling on the matter could upend the Justice Department’s cases against James and Comey. Comey’s lawyers additionally said Halligan didn’t have the ability to bring charges against him because a five-year statute of limitations had passed.

Both James and Comey have pleaded not guilty to the charges brought against them.

Nov. 12 (UPI) — A government watchdog has called on the bar associations of Florida and Virginia to investigate lawyer Lindsey Halligan on grounds for violating numerous rules of professional conduct by carrying out prosecutions against President Donald Trump‘s political rivals.

Halligan, a former personal attorney to the president who lacks prosecutorial experience, was named interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia by Trump after her predecessor resigned amid pressure to bring criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Comey, a Republican, investigated potential collusion between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia. James successfully secured a civil fraud verdict against Trump and his businesses, but the judgment was vacated and is being appealed.

Since taking up the position of interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Halligan has filed charges against both Comey and James.

The former FBI director has been charged with obstructing justice in connection with a 2020 investigation into his Russian collusion probe. James has been charged with bank fraud and making false statements on a financial statement in connection with an alleged misrepresentation of property she purchased in Virginia in 2020.

Both cases have come under serious scrutiny by legal experts, with Campaign for Accountability stating that Halligan brought the charges against Trump’s rivals “despite a dearth of evidence that either committed any crimes.”

The nonprofit watchdog on Tuesday sent letters to the Florida Bar and Virginia Bar to investigate the Florida-licensed attorney.

According to the letters, Campaign for Accountability alleges that by indicting Comey and James, Halligan violated several rules of both bars, including those requiring competence, prohibiting the prosecution of a charge a prosecutor knows is unsupported by probable cause and prohibiting dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation or prejudicial conduct.

It also alleges that Halligan’s actions pressuring reporter Anna Bower about her coverage of the case against James last month violated Justice Department regulations prohibiting pretrial publicity.

“Ms. Halligan’s actions with respect to the prosecution of Mr. Comey and Ms. James, and her Signal exchange with Ms. Bower, appear to represent a serious breach of her ethical obligations,” Michelle Kuppersmith, executive director of Campaign for Accountability, said in the letter to both states’ bars.

“The committee has a responsibility to stop Ms. Halligan from abusing her position and her Florida bar license for improper purposes. Failing to discipline Ms. Halligan under these egregious circumstances will embolden others who would use our system of justice for their own political ends.”

Both Comey and James have pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Nov. 6 (UPI) — The Trump administration has one day to fully distribute Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for November, a federal judge ruled on Thursday.

U.S. District Court of Rhode Island Judge Jack McConnell ordered the program funding after earlier requiring the Trump administration to access available money to at least partially fund SNAP benefits amid the federal government shutdown.

McConnell required the Trump administration to apprise the court on Wednesday of efforts to fund the program formerly known as “food stamps.”

“People have gone without for too long,” McConnell said during an emergency hearing on Thursday, as reported by CNN.

“Not making payments to them for even another day is simply unacceptable,” he added.

He said the Trump administration has not done enough to access an estimated $4.65 billion in contingency funds to partially fund the SNAP benefits that cost about $9 billion per month to help 42 million recipients put food on their tables.

If SNAP is not funded fully, “people will go hungry, food pantries will be overburdened, and needless suffering will occur,” McConnell said on Thursday, according to CNBC.

“That’s what irreparable harm here means,” he continued. “Last weekend, SNAP benefits lapsed for the first time in our nation’s history.”

He called it a “problem that could have and should have been avoided.”

McConnell ordered the Trump administration to provide the full amount of November SNAP benefits to respective states by Friday, which would enable them to distribute benefits to their residents within a few days.

The federal judge also referenced a Truth Social post made by President Donald Trump on Tuesday.

In that post, the president said SNAP benefits only would be funded “when the radical-left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before.”

The social media post served as evidence that the Trump administration would ignore McConnell’s prior order requiring it to access as much funding as possible to distribute SNAP benefits.

He criticized the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s decision not to access contingency funds to continue SNAP benefits instead of allowing them to be suspended as of Saturday.

“Even when Nov. 1 came, [the] USDA refused to use the congressionally mandated contingency funds,” McConnell said.

“USDA cannot now cry that it cannot get timely payments to the beneficiary for weeks or months because states are not prepared to make partial payments.”

McConnell is presiding over one of two federal cases filed by up to 25 states seeking to continue federal funding of SNAP benefits despite the record 37-day federal government shutdown that started on Oct. 1.

New York is party to both suits, and state Attorney General Letitia James welcomed McConnell’s ruling on Thursday.

“A judge in Rhode Island just stopped the federal government from starving millions of Americans,” James said in a prepared statement.

“I am relieved that people will get the food they need,” she added, “but it is outrageous that it took a lawsuit to make the federal government feed its own people.”