SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
legal defense fund
Trump Appointee With 'History of Discriminatory Practices' Confirmed to Fair Housing Role at HUD
"Millions of Americans already face barriers to housing," said the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund. "Appointing someone trying to dismantle civil rights protections will only cause more harm."
Oct 10, 2025
After reports that the Trump administration has gutted its enforcement of the Fair Housing Act, civil rights and housing advocates are warning that the president's newly confirmed appointee to lead the office responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination laws will seek to further erode civil rights protections.
On Tuesday, the US Senate confirmed Craig Trainor—as part of a group of 107 nominees to various executive posts—to be assistant secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The office is responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws, including laws that prohibit housing discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, and sex.
Upon his confirmation, the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund (LDF) described Trainor as someone "with a history of discriminatory practices."
With a history of discriminatory practices, Craig Trainor has been confirmed as Assistant Secretary for the Department of Housing and Urban Development.Millions of Americans already face barriers to housing. Appointing someone trying to dismantle civil rights protections will only cause more harm.
[image or embed]
— Legal Defense Fund (@legaldefensefund.bsky.social) October 9, 2025 at 5:14 PM
Since February, Trainor has worked as the acting assistant secretary of the Department of Education's (DOE) Office of Civil Rights (OCR). The National Fair Housing Alliance said that during his tenure in the Education Department, Trainor "has overseen the illegal weaponization of the Department's civil rights authorities for purposes contrary to the advancement of civil rights."
Demetria McCain, the director of policy at the LDF, says "Trainor advanced a radical and inaccurate view of civil rights law that was blocked by federal courts."
In February, Trainor sent a "Dear Colleague" letter describing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives pursued by colleges and K-12 schools as "illegal" forms of discrimination against white and Asian students and threatened federal funding for those that did not comply and reverse the policies.
The LDF sued the DOE in April, calling the effort an attempt "to prohibit and chill lawful efforts to ensure that Black students are afforded equal educational opportunities," and arguing that the DOE was "intentionally discriminating against Black students through its efforts to defund federal grantees based on erroneous facts and interpretations of law." Three federal courts sided with the LDF later that month and blocked Trainor's office from enforcing the demands in the letter.
In the meantime, the OCR also paused thousands of civil rights investigations into discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, and disability. Employees told ProPublica that they declined to open new investigations and were told to stop communicating with students, families, and schools involved in cases launched during previous administrations. One attorney said he and his colleagues had "been essentially muzzled."
Trainor would later unpause some investigations related to disabilities, but others remained on hold. Meanwhile, he launched new "discrimination" investigations, including one highly publicized case against Denver Public Schools for installing an all-gender restroom, which Trainor argued "appears to directly violate the civil rights of the district's female students."
In March and April of 2025, the OCR dismissed civil rights cases at an unprecedented rate of 89-91%, compared to the historic average of around 70%. Meanwhile, the number of cases in which violations were found dropped precipitously, from 200 per month during the Biden years to around 50-60 in April.
"Under the Trump administration, the OCR moved away from addressing systemic discrimination toward a narrower enforcement agenda aligned with the administration's political priorities," read an August report from the human rights group ImpACT International. "For instance, investigations into racial disparities in school discipline—which disproportionately affected Black students and those with disabilities—were deprioritized or outright abandoned. Simultaneously, the OCR shifted intense focus toward investigating transgender students, particularly targeting their participation in girls' and women's sports."
Mike Pillera, a former OCR attorney, said that under the new administration, "OCR is the most useless it's ever been, and it's the most dangerous it's ever been. And by useless, I mean unavailable. Unable to do the work."
In June, following Trainor's nomination for the Fair Housing Office, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) grilled the official, noting that in 2021, he wrote an article titled "George Floyd and the Rise of the Rival Constitution," in which he described the 1964 Civil Rights Act as the catalyst for an "all-embracing ideology of diversity" that threatens the "actual Constitution," which he said he preferred.
Warren also noted that while serving on the New York Advisory Committee to the US Commission on Civil Rights, Trainor dismissed well-documented evidence of discriminatory evictions of minority tenants by New York landlords, suggesting that while it may have occurred "many decades in the past," it was not a problem today.
"It is deeply concerning that the Senate confirmed Craig Trainor to be the administration's top fair housing official without even holding an individualized vote, much less scrutinizing his troubling record," said NFHA Executive Vice President Nikitra Bailey. "This administration has already attacked fair housing enforcement in many ways."
The appointment of Trainor to oversee the Office of Fair Housing comes just weeks after half a dozen whistleblowers told the New York Times that "Trump's political appointees had made it nearly impossible for them to do their jobs."
The majority of staff were axed or reassigned by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in the early months of Trump's administration, leaving a skeleton crew to pursue fair housing cases. Staff, meanwhile, brought forward emails showing that Trump appointees systematically obstructed investigations.
Like in the DOE's civil rights office, hundreds of housing discrimination investigations were frozen, and employees were cut off from communication with clients who alleged mistreatment by landlords and banks. Meanwhile, senior officials pressured employees to stop pursuing cases related to decades-old discrimination precedents, such as appraisal bias and redlining that impact the ability of nonwhite families to sell and purchase homes.
Two of the whistleblowers, attorneys Palmer Heenan and Paul Osedebe, reported being fired shortly after the Times report and their complaint to Warren were made public.
Warren joined in criticizing the confirmation of Trainor, whom she noted "is currently being sued by the NAACP for civil rights violations at the Department of Education." His confirmation, she said, "comes just one week after the Trump administration fired and suspended whistleblowers who shared documents with my office describing the administration's systematic attack on civil rights protections in housing in the office Trainor will now lead."
Keep ReadingShow Less
5th Circuit Strikes Down Louisiana Legislative Maps Racially Gerrymandered by GOP
One ACLU attorney said the ruling "sends a powerful message: The Voting Rights Act is still a vital safeguard against racial discrimination in our democracy."
Aug 15, 2025
In what the ACLU called "a victory for Black voters and democracy in Louisiana," a three-judge panel of the staunchly conservative 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld a lower court's ruling that struck down the state's racially rigged legislative maps for violating the Voting Rights Act.
The panel agreed in Nairne v. Landry that Louisiana's state Senate and House of Representatives new maps, enacted in 2022, "dilute the voting strength of Black Louisianans in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965."
The maps do so, the court wrote, "by 'packing' Black voters into a small number of majority-Black districts and 'cracking' other Black communities across multiple districts, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to form effective voting blocs."
The panel—whose members were appointed by former Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Joe Biden—also found "no basis" supporting Louisiana's assertion that conditions had changed enough in the state to negate the need for race-minded remedies.
🚨Big Win for Black Voters in Louisiana! ️Today, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a critical victory by upholding a lower court’s decision that struck down Louisiana’s state legislative maps for unlawfully diluting Black voting power.www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/...
[image or embed]
— Black Voters Matter Fund (@blackvotersmatterfund.org) August 14, 2025 at 5:09 PM
Louisiana must now redraw legislative maps that better reflect the demography of a state in which nearly one-third of the population is Black but roughly just a quarter of its legislative districts are majority African American. However, there is a stay on the redraw until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which involves the state's racially rigged congressional map.
"I am beyond elated for this powerful win of Nairne v. Landry that touches all of Louisiana, including rural areas like Assumption Parish, where transformation has been nonexistent for far too long," plaintiff Dorothy Nairne said in a statement.
"Our people are ready to roar through our votes using legislative maps that truly represent us all," she added. "This victory ignites our desire to be involved, to uplift ourselves, and to shape the future our ancestors dreamed of."
Another plaintiff in the case, Alice Washington, said that "a unanimous win is incredible as the court clearly held Louisiana must have maps where Black voters have a fair opportunity to elect candidates of choice. We are advancing our state to a more perfect place and hopefully will inspire all to want to live here."
Alanah Odoms, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana—which represents case plaintiffs—said that the panel "has affirmed what we've always known, Black voters in Louisiana deserve equal representation."
"This is a vital step toward correcting generations of injustice, and we will not stop until every Black Louisianan has the full and fair representation guaranteed to all Americans," Odoms added.
ACLU Voting Rights Project staff attorney Megan Keenan said the ruling "sends a powerful message: The Voting Rights Act is still a vital safeguard against racial discrimination in our democracy. The court recognized the reality that many Black voters in Louisiana have been denied full and fair representation."
ANOTHER WIN: 5th Circuit Sides with Black Louisianians, Strikes Down Racially Discriminatory State Mapwww.naacpldf.org/press-releas...
[image or embed]
— Janai Nelson (@janainelson.bsky.social) August 14, 2025 at 2:20 PM
The Legal Defense Fund also represents plaintiffs in the case. LDF assistant counsel Sara Rohani lauded "the strength and resilience of Black communities across Louisiana who have fought for years to be fairly recognized, represented, and heard."
"Fair representation is not optional in Louisiana," Rohani added. "Today's decision reaffirms that the state must pass fair and nondiscriminatory maps to comply with the Voting Rights Act. We look forward to rectifying another example of Louisiana's long history of racial voter suppression."
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, a Republican, condemned Thursday's ruling, telling the Louisiana Illuminator that "we are reviewing our options with a focus on stability in our elections and preserving state and judicial resources while the [US] Supreme Court resolves related issues."
One of those issues involves Louisiana's congressional map, which was drawn by Republican state lawmakers to include just one majority Black district. The justices are set to hear that case, Callais v. Landry, as well as the closely related Louisiana v. Callais—which differ in procedural postures—during the high court's upcoming term.
These battles in Louisiana come as the Voting Rights Act turns 60 amid numerous Republican attacks on the landmark legislation. GOP-controlled state legislatures across the country have enacted racially rigged congressional maps, imposed restrictions on voter registration, reduced early voting options, and passed voter identification laws. These measures disproportionately disenfranchise minority voters, and some GOP officials have admitted that they are intended to give Republican candidates an electoral edge.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Federal Judge Blocks Trump Birthright Citizenship Order, But Fight 'Far From Over'
"We are fighting to ensure President Trump doesn't trample on the citizenship rights of one single child," said a member of the legal team behind the class action suit.
Jul 10, 2025
The battle over U.S. President Donald Trump's attack on birthright citizenship continued on Thursday, when a federal judge in New Hampshire gave a green light to a class action lawsuit and blocked the Republican's contested executive order.
Advocacy groups including the ACLU, Asian Law Caucus, Democracy Defenders Fund, and Legal Defense Fund (LDF) launched the case last month, just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority limited nationwide injunctions—often used by lower courts to stop seemingly illegal policies like Trump's birthright move—but declined to weigh in on the actual order, which three different district judges had blocked.
"The court has sent a clear message: All children born on U.S. soil are entitled to the full rights and protections of citizenship."
Experts warn there will still be challenges to the class action route, but U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante—an appointee of former President George W. Bush—gave the groups their first win in the new case, certifying "a nationwide class that protects the citizenship rights of all children born on U.S. soil," with a seven-day delay to allow for an appeal from the Trump adminsitration.
"Class petitioners have demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits of their claims; that class petitioners are likely to suffer irreparable harm if the order is not granted; that the potential harm to the class petitioners if the order is not granted outweighs the potential harm to respondents if the order is granted; and that the issuance of this order is in the public interest," the judge wrote.
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project deputy director Cody Wofsy, who argued the case, said in a statement that "this ruling is a huge victory and will help protect the citizenship of all children born in the United States, as the Constitution intended."
"We are fighting to ensure President Trump doesn't trample on the citizenship rights of one single child," Wofsy declared.
Aarti Kohli, executive director of Asian Law Caucus, noted that "since the Supreme Court's decision, parents have lived in fear and uncertainty, wondering whether they should give birth in a different state, whether their newborns would be subject to deportation, and what kind of future awaits their children."
BREAKING: Judge in new case challenging Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship grants class certification and blocks enforcement of the order. The injunction is stayed for seven days to allow any appeal.
[image or embed]
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) July 10, 2025 at 11:25 AM
LDF senior counsel Morenike Fajana called the district judge's decision "a powerful affirmation of the 14th Amendment and the enduring principle that citizenship in the United States is a right by birth, not a privilege granted by politics."
"By granting nationwide class certification and blocking the executive order from taking effect, the court has sent a clear message: All children born on U.S. soil are entitled to the full rights and protections of citizenship," Fajana continued. "This is a critical victory for families across the country, and we will continue to defend the constitutional promise of equal protection under the law."
While welcoming Thursday's win for the plaintiffs, "and millions of families across this country, who deserve clarity, and stability," Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund, also stressed that "the fight to uphold the guarantee of birthright citizenship is far from over, and we will continue to advocate to ensure we keep that promise."
Though not directly commenting on the judge's decision, the Trump administration signaled Thursday that it will keep fighting to end birthright citizenship and impose the other components of the president's anti-immigrant agenda.
"The Trump administration," White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told NBC News ahead of the hearing, "is committed to lawfully implementing the president's executive order to protect the meaning and value of American citizenship and which restores the 14th Amendment to its original intent."
After Thursday's ruling, according to the news outlet,
the Department of Justice referred NBC News to a previous statement from Attorney General Pam Bondi last week that followed another judge's order in a separate immigration case, saying a "rogue district court judge is already trying to circumvent the Supreme Court's recent ruling against nationwide injunctions." Bondi added in that statement, "the American people see right through this" and that Department of Justice attorneys will continue to fight for Trump's agenda to secure the U.S. border.
Bondi's statement last week was in response to a judge in Washington, D.C. blocking Trump's crackdown on asylum-seekers.
Lee Gelernt, an ACLU attorney who argued that case, said at the time that the "hugely important decision" will "save the lives of families fleeing grave danger" and "reaffirms that the president cannot ignore the laws Congress has passed and the most basic premise of our country's separation of powers."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular