Filed Date: Oct. 16, 2025
Closed Date: Nov. 14, 2025
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is about a challenge by the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s new requirements that the CHA abide by several Trump Administration policies in order to secure funding necessary to provide housing for about 132,000 low-income residents.
On October 16, 2025, the Chicago Housing Authority filed suit against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Illinois through private counsel. The complaint alleges that HUD is trying to compel the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA or “the Authority”) to accept new and unconstitutional terms as the price for retaining federal funding necessary to provide housing for about 132,000 low-income residents. Borrowing from presidential executive orders, HUD demands that in exchange for funding, the CHA must certify that it will:
Plaintiff claims these bear little or no relation to their purposes or the grant programs established by Congress for public housing. They allege that this conditioning of funding violates numerous constitutional and statutory provisions, including the Fifth Amendment’s void-for-vagueness doctrine, the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and separation of powers principles. This case was assigned to District Judge Martha M. Pacold.
Along with its complaint, the plaintiff also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order on October 16, asking that the court temporarily restrain the defendants from requiring the plaintiff to implement the challenged certifications, or alternatively, stay the deadlines for the CHA to apply for funding until after the court rules on the lawfulness of the certifications.
The Court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order on October 20, 2025, after finding that the plaintiff’s claims were not likely to succeed on the merits of their claim in this court. The court further found that there was a potential jurisdictional issue because this case involves claims stemming from decisions not to continue federal funding which, under the Supreme Court’s reasoning in National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association, are potentially required to be brought in Federal Claims Court under the Tucker Act. Apart from the jurisdictional issue, the court also found that granting a TRO in this case would greatly prejudice HUD’s defense and the federal government’s due process rights, as the plaintiff created the emergency nature of the suit by waiting an unnecessarily long time to file its complaint and request for relief, despite being notified of the new funding conditions months ago. Next, the Court found that the plaintiff had not clearly demonstrated their likelihood of facing irreparable harm to the level necessary to justify a TRO. Citing National Institutes of Health again, the Court reasoned that loss of money is not typically considered irreparable harm. The plaintiff did not claim any exceptions to this principle in this case, nor did they show they will need to forfeit the funds while the challenge is pending. Finally, the court reasoned that because of the undue delay in this case caused by the plaintiff, equitable principles support a denial of the TRO.
On November 13, 2025, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. The notice did not state the reasons for the voluntary dismissal. The next day, the Court acknowledged receipt of the notice and stated that dismissal went into effect without Court intervention.
Summary Authors
Sofia Yoder (11/22/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71669648/parties/chicago-housing-authority-v-turner/
Pacold, Martha Maria (Illinois)
Feldman, Edward W. (Illinois)
Lederer, Caryn Cecelia (Illinois)
Chicago, AUSA - (Illinois)
Johnson, Patrick Walter (Illinois)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71669648/chicago-housing-authority-v-turner/
Last updated Dec. 16, 2025, 12:42 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Oct. 16, 2025
Closing Date: Nov. 14, 2025
Case Ongoing: No reason to think so
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) is a municipal corporation organized under the Illinois Housing Authorities Act, 310 ILCS 10/1 et seq. The CHA is a public housing authority (PHA). It provides housing assistance through both traditional public housing and various voucher programs, including Housing Choice Vouchers.
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Scott Turner (Washington, D.C., - United States (national) -), Federal
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Other Dockets:
Northern District of Illinois 1:25-cv-12670
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.: