Several nonprofits filed a lawsuit last year accusing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development of changing the rules for receiving $75 million to build housing for homeless families and individuals. The plaintiffs accused the Trump administration of issuing a new Notice of Funding Opportunity, or NOFO, for the Continuum of Care program to better align with its social policies.

U.S District Judge Mary McElroy, nominated by President Trump, said the department’s “slapdash imposition of political whims” was unlawful and she ordered it to scrap the new policy.

“Once again, this Court is faced with a case in which an executive agency has made a last-minute decision to make major, disruptive changes to grants within its purview, all for the express purpose of accomplishing the current administration’s policy objectives,” McElroy said in her ruling that the NOFO violated the Administrative Procedure Act, a law governing how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

A spokesperson for HUD did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Advocates for plaintiffs welcomed the ruling.

“For more than three decades, the federal government has supported housing providers and communities through HUD’s programs to help people experiencing homelessness move into stable housing,” Skye Perryman, president and chief executive of Democracy Forward, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “We are pleased that the court has stopped the Trump-Vance administration from holding life-saving funding hostage to a political agenda.”

Ann Oliva, chief executive of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, said the ruling was “a victory for people across this nation who have overcome homelessness and stabilized in HUD’s permanent housing programs.”

“Today’s news reinforces a fundamental truth: that the work to end homelessness is not partisan, and never should be interfered with for political means,” Oliva said in a statement.

Plaintiffs argued the Trump administration was aiming to upend polices in place for decades to satisfy its political considerations, including whether jurisdictions “support sanctuary protections, harm reduction practices, or inclusive policies for transgender people.”

The Alliance and the Women’s Development Corporation argued that HUD lacked the authority to make the changes, adding that the new award process was “shockingly unlawful” and would “irreparably injure qualified applicants for these funds and the communities they serve.”

In its court filings, HUD argued the new criteria was an effort “to ensure the availability of funding to protect our Nation’s most vulnerable individuals and families from the trauma of homelessness while simultaneously promoting self-sufficiency.”

“Defendants acted reasonably and prudently because the NOFO conditions, focusing on public safety, cooperation with law enforcement and prohibitions on illegal drug use, are sufficiently related to the funding goals of self-sufficiency and reduction of trauma,” HUD wrote.

The post Judge rules that HUD effort to change criteria for homeless funding is unlawful appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel in Los Angeles denied requests from state Republicans and the U.S. Justice Department to block the map from being used in future elections. The complaint accused California of violating the Constitution by using race as a factor to favor Hispanic voters when drawing the new district lines.

The map, aimed at giving Democrats a shot at flipping as many as five House seats next year, was decisively approved by voters through Proposition 50 in November. The effort was pushed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is eying a 2028 presidential run, to counter a similar effort in Texas backed by President Donald Trump to help Republicans win five House seats. Republicans currently hold nine of California’s 52 congressional seats.

The ruling is a victory for Democrats in the state-by-state mid-decade redistricting battle that could help determine which party wins control of the U.S. House in 2026. Following the tit-for-tat showdown between the nation’s two most populous states, several Republican-led states including Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio have adopted new district lines that could provide a partisan advantage. Republican-run Utah was ordered by a judge to adopt a map that creates a Democratic-leaning district. The Justice Department has only sued California.

“Republicans’ weak attempt to silence voters failed,” Newsom said in a statement.

Republicans are expected to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. A representative for state Republicans didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

California Democrats said that the new map was legal because it was drawn for partisan advantage. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that partisan gerrymandering is a political question and not one for the federal courts to decide. The California panel of judges affirmed the state’s characterization, saying there was not strong evidence to support the maps were drawn based on race.

“After reviewing the evidence, we conclude that it was exactly as one would think: it was partisan,” the judges wrote.

In dissent, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Lee, appointed by Trump, said that at least one district was drawn using race as a factor “to curry favor with Latino groups and voters.”

The ruling also comes after the Supreme Court ruled in December to allow Texas to use its new map for the 2026 election because it was drawn with partisan goals. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a concurring opinion that the California map was also approved for political advantage, signaling it may also stand.

New U.S. House maps are drawn across the country after the census every 10 years. Some states like California rely on an independent commission to draw maps while others like Texas let politicians draw them. The effort to create new maps in the middle of the decade is highly unusual.

House Democrats need to gain just a handful of seats next year to take control of the chamber, which could thwart Trump’s agenda for the remainder of his term and open the way for congressional investigations into his administration. Republicans hold a narrow margin of control in the House with 218 seats to Democrats’ 213.

The post Federal Court Upholds CA’s House Map Ahead Of 2026 Midterms appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled late Tuesday that “Musk has not demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits” in his request for a preliminary injunction. She offered to hold a trial in her California courtroom as soon as this fall, “given the public interest at stake and potential for harm if a conversion contrary to law occurred.”

Musk, an early OpenAI investor, began a legal offensive against the ChatGPT maker and CEO Sam Altman a year ago, suing for breach of contract over what he said was the betrayal of its founding aims as a nonprofit.

He escalated the legal dispute late last year, adding new claims and defendants, including Microsoft, and asking for a court order that would stop OpenAI’s plans to convert itself into a for-profit business. Musk also added his own AI company, xAI, as a plaintiff, claiming that OpenAI was unfairly stifling business competition.

He and a group of investors more recently made an unsolicited $97.4 billion bid to buy a controlling stake in the nonprofit — a move that undermined Musk’s “claim of irreparable harm,” the judge wrote.

OpenAI said it welcomed the court’s decision.

“This has always been about competition,” a statement from the company said. “Elon’s own emails show that he wanted to merge a for-profit OpenAI into Tesla. That would have been great for his personal benefit, but not for our mission or U.S. interests.”

Musk alleges in the lawsuit that the companies are violating the terms of his foundational contributions to the charity. He had invested about $45 million in the startup from its founding until 2018, his lawyer has said.

Musk attorney Marc Toberoff said in a statement late Tuesday that he is pleased that the court offered an expedited trial on the core claims.

“We look forward to a jury confirming that Altman accepted Musk’s charitable contributions knowing full well they had to be used for the public’s benefit rather than his own enrichment,” Toberoff said.

Gonzalez Rogers in a hearing last month called it a “ stretch” to claim “irreparable harm ” to Musk, and she called the case “billionaires vs. billionaires.” She questioned why Musk invested tens of millions in OpenAI without a written contract. Toberoff responded that it was because the relationship between Altman and Musk at the time was “built on trust” and the two were very close.

“That is just a lot of money” to invest “on a handshake,” the judge said.

The dispute has roots in a 2017 internal power struggle at the fledgling startup that led to Altman becoming OpenAI’s CEO.

Emails disclosed by OpenAI show Musk had also sought to be CEO and grew frustrated after two other OpenAI co-founders said he would hold too much power as a major shareholder and chief executive if the startup succeeded in its goal to achieve better-than-human AI known as artificial general intelligence. Musk has long voiced concerns about how advanced forms of AI could threaten humanity.

Altman eventually succeeded in becoming CEO and has remained so except for a period in 2023 when he was fired and then reinstated days later after the board that ousted him was replaced.

Gonzalez Rogers, appointed by then-President Barack Obama in 2011, has handled a number of tech industry cases including Apple’s fight with Epic Games, though she said last month that Musk’s case is “nothing like” that one. That case was also the last time she granted a preliminary injunction, eight months before the case went to trial.

The post Judge denies Elon Musk’s request to block OpenAI for-profit conversion but welcomes trial appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.