Domestic violence nonprofits are winning against the Trump administration in court – The 19th News

Report on Legal Challenges to Funding for Gender-Based Violence Services and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A series of legal challenges has been initiated by non-profit organizations and state attorneys general in response to administrative actions restricting federal funding for domestic and sexual violence services. These restrictions directly impact programs supporting vulnerable populations, including women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and immigrants. Recent court rulings have temporarily blocked the implementation of these policies. The administrative actions and subsequent legal battles have significant implications for the achievement of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Analysis of Impacts on Sustainable Development Goal 5: Gender Equality

The funding restrictions pose a direct threat to the progress of SDG 5, which aims to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. Specifically, they undermine Target 5.2: “Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres.”

Threats to Gender-Based Violence Services

• The administration is attempting to restrict federal grants for activities it defines as “gender ideology extremism” and diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
• Recipients of funding from the Office on Violence Against Women are prohibited from framing domestic or sexual violence as systemic social justice issues.
• These policies risk dismantling essential support systems for survivors of gender-based violence, impeding the core objective of SDG 5.

Exclusion of LGBTQ+ Populations

The principle of “leaving no one behind” is central to the SDGs. The administration’s policies specifically target services for LGBTQ+ individuals, a group disproportionately affected by intimate partner violence.

• A lawsuit was filed on behalf of nine non-profits after the administration moved to end federal funding for activities promoting what it termed “gender ideology extremism.”
• Statistical evidence highlights the increased vulnerability of this demographic:
  • 54% of respondents to the 2015 U.S. Trans Survey reported experiencing intimate partner violence.
  • 47% of respondents reported being sexually assaulted.
• A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction, reinstating canceled grants and voiding restrictive application instructions, thereby temporarily protecting services crucial for achieving equality for all genders.

Analysis of Impacts on Sustainable Development Goal 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The administrative actions challenge SDG 16, which promotes peaceful and inclusive societies, provides access to justice for all, and builds effective, accountable institutions. The restrictions on legal aid directly conflict with Target 16.3: “Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.”

Impeding Access to Justice for Survivors

• A new rule from the Department of Justice (DOJ) restricts the use of federal grants to fund legal services for immigrant survivors of violence who lack permanent legal status.
• This rule is being challenged in a lawsuit led by a coalition of state attorneys general, who argue it violates the Violence Against Women Act, which mandates that services are “not dependent on the victim’s immigration status.”
• By limiting legal recourse for a vulnerable population, the rule creates a significant barrier to justice, undermining the foundation of SDG 16.

Legal and Institutional Responses

The legal system is being utilized to ensure institutional accountability, a key component of SDG 16. A series of lawsuits has resulted in preliminary court victories for service providers.

1. In June, 17 state-level coalitions sued the administration over restrictions on Violence Against Women Act grants from the DOJ.
2. In July, a similar lawsuit was filed concerning grants from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
3. In August, a preliminary injunction was issued, blocking the DOJ grant restrictions. The judge noted the rules would bar organizations from providing adequate services to transgender victims and could limit their ability to counsel victims beyond contacting law enforcement.
4. In October, a second preliminary injunction blocked the HHS and HUD grant restrictions, with the judge finding the administration “engaged in a baseless and arbitrary process.”

Analysis of Impacts on Sustainable Development Goal 10: Reduced Inequalities

The funding restrictions directly contravene the objectives of SDG 10, which calls for reducing inequality within and among countries. The policies disproportionately harm marginalized groups, thereby exacerbating existing inequalities, in opposition to Target 10.2 (promote the inclusion of all) and Target 10.3 (ensure equal opportunity).

Targeting Marginalized and Vulnerable Groups

• The policies specifically target funding for services that support women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and immigrants without permanent legal status.
• By creating barriers to life-saving support, the restrictions risk deepening the social and economic exclusion of survivors of violence from these communities.
• These actions are inconsistent with the fundamental SDG principle of “leaving no one behind,” as they systematically disadvantage populations already facing significant societal barriers.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 5: Gender Equality

  This is the most central SDG addressed in the article. The entire piece focuses on efforts to combat domestic violence and sexual assault, which disproportionately affect women. The article explicitly states that the funding is “essential to providing life-saving services to vulnerable victims, who are more likely to be women.” It also delves into the specific vulnerabilities of LGBTQ+ individuals, such as queer women and transgender people, connecting directly to gender identity and equality.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article is fundamentally about the pursuit of justice through legal and institutional channels. It details a “series of lawsuits” filed by nonprofits against the administration to block restrictive rules and ensure the enforcement of laws like the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The discussion revolves around access to justice, the role of the U.S. Department of Justice, court injunctions, and the provision of legal services for victims, all of which are core components of SDG 16.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article highlights how the administration’s funding restrictions target and exacerbate inequalities faced by marginalized groups. It specifically mentions the impact on “LGBTQ+ victims,” “immigrants without permanent legal status,” and transgender individuals. The lawsuits are a direct response to discriminatory policies that threaten the well-being and inclusion of these vulnerable populations, aligning with the goal of reducing inequality.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres.

   The work of the nonprofits described in the article is entirely focused on this target. They are dedicated to combating “domestic violence and sexual assault” and providing “life-saving services” to victims. The article’s central theme is the struggle to maintain funding for these essential services that directly address violence against women and other vulnerable groups.

2. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

   This target is demonstrated by the legal actions taken by the nonprofits. They filed lawsuits to challenge administrative rules they deemed illegal and harmful. The article discusses the provision of “legal services for immigrant victims of domestic and sexual violence” and the fight to prevent restrictions on these services, which is a clear effort to ensure equal access to justice for a particularly vulnerable group.

3. Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.

   The administration’s rules are presented as discriminatory. For example, the article notes the attempt to restrict funding for organizations that serve LGBTQ+ victims and immigrants without legal status. The lawsuits argue that these restrictions violate “equal protection rights,” directly challenging discriminatory practices that harm women and girls within these marginalized communities.

4. Target 16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.

   The legal challenges aim to enforce existing non-discriminatory laws, such as the Violence Against Women Act, which the article notes says that services for victims are “not dependent on the victim’s immigration status.” The court injunctions blocking the administration’s new rules represent a successful, albeit temporary, enforcement of non-discriminatory policy.

5. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices.

   The lawsuits described in the article are a direct attempt to achieve this target. By challenging the administration’s funding restrictions, the coalitions are working to eliminate discriminatory policies that create unequal outcomes for victims of violence based on their gender identity, sexual orientation, or immigration status.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence (Relates to Target 5.2)

  The article provides explicit statistical data that can be used as indicators. It cites an analysis showing “Queer women are significantly more likely to have experienced intimate partner violence in their lifetime than straight women” and survey data where “Fifty-four percent of respondents to the 2015 U.S. Trans Survey said they have experienced intimate partner violence, and 47 percent reported being sexually assaulted.” These statistics directly measure the prevalence of violence against specific vulnerable groups.

• Availability of Legal Services for Victims (Relates to Target 16.3)

  An implied indicator is the accessibility and funding of legal services for survivors. The article’s focus on the new Justice Department rule that would “restrict the use of federal grants to pay for legal services for immigrant victims” highlights that the availability of such services is a key metric for measuring access to justice.

• Existence and Enforcement of Non-discriminatory Policies (Relates to Targets 5.1, 16.b, 10.3)

  The legal battles themselves serve as an indicator. The issuance of “preliminary injunctions” by federal judges to block the administration’s restrictive rules is a direct measure of the successful enforcement of non-discriminatory principles against discriminatory policies. The article’s reference to the Violence Against Women Act’s provision that services are “not dependent on the victim’s immigration status” points to the existence of such policies.

• Level of Federal Funding for Gender-Based Violence Programs (Relates to all identified targets)

  The article implies that the amount of federal funding is a critical indicator of commitment to these goals. The entire conflict is over “millions of dollars of funding” and a “temporary federal freeze.” The mention that one organization, FORGE, “relies on federal grants for 90 percent of its funding” underscores how tracking funding levels is essential to measuring the capacity to provide life-saving services.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

Source: 19thnews.org