Filed Date: June 27, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged the imposition of new conditions on funding grants to the City of Tucson under the Preservation and Reinvestment Initiative for Community Enhancement (PRICE) and the Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing (PRO). In July 2024 and January 2025, Tucson received around eleven million from the PRICE grant and seven million from the PRO grant. However, on June 5, 2025, Tucson received an email from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the agency that administers the grant, that purported to amend the PRICE Grant Agreement by adding several new conditions to the grant based on Executive Orders issued by President Trump.
The new conditions include prohibitions on the promotion of “gender ideology” and elective abortions; a broad (not funding specific) certification of compliance with all Federal anti-discrimination laws; an agreement that this certification is material to HUD’s payment decisions for purposes of liability under the False Claims Act; an open-ended obligation to comply with any future direction from HUD, the Attorney General, or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services related to compliance with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 or other Executive Orders or immigration laws; and a provision prohibiting a jurisdiction from using funding “in a manner that by design or effect facilities the subsidization or promotion of illegal immigration or abets policies that seek to shield illegal aliens from deportation."
Represented by city attorneys, the plaintiffs argued that the imposition of new conditions violated the Separation of Powers, since any attempt by executive-branch agencies to impose conditions on grant funding that Congress does not authorize is a violation of the separation of powers. The plaintiffs also claimed that the conditions were impermissibly retroactive since the conditions were imposed after the grants were accepted by the plaintiffs. Finally, the plaintiffs claimed that the conditions were impermissibly vague and not related to the purpose of the grants.
The plaintiffs asked the court to declare that HUD's attempt to add conditions to their grants was unlawful, to enjoin HUD from enforcing the conditions, and to order HUD to release the appropriated funds.
The case was assigned to District Judge Bruce G Macdonald. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 24, clarifying some of the original statements in the complaint, remedying a few defective citations, and providing more detail on why the conditions were impermissibly vague.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Jeremiah Price (7/23/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70677175/parties/tucson-city-of-v-turner/
MacDonald, Bruce Gordon (Arizona)
Nassen, Regina L (Arizona)
Saavedra, Michelle Rebecca (Arizona)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70677175/tucson-city-of-v-turner/
Last updated Aug. 21, 2025, noon
State / Territory: Arizona
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (Spending Freezes/Cuts)
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 27, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The City of Tucson.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Department of Housing and Urban Development (- United States (national) -), Federal
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Spending/Appropriations Clauses
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority: