Judicial Ruling on Violence Against Women Act Grants and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

A preliminary order from a United. States federal court has blocked the enforcement of new restrictions on grants administered by the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW). This ruling has significant positive implications for the advancement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

Legal Challenge to Grant Restrictions

A lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island by a group of 17 state coalitions, led by the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence. The plaintiffs argued that the Department of Justice and the OVW overstepped their authority by imposing unlawful restrictions on grants funded through the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

Contested Grant Conditions

The new restrictions would have prohibited grant recipients from using funds for activities related to:

• Promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.
• Providing support for immigrants and transgender individuals.
• Framing domestic or sexual violence as systemic social justice issues rather than solely as criminal offenses.

Court Findings and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

U.S. District Court Judge William E. Smith ruled in favor of the coalitions, finding that the OVW’s decision to impose the conditions was “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.” The judge noted the agency failed to examine relevant data or consider the impact of its decisions.

Upholding SDG 5: Gender Equality

The court’s decision directly supports SDG 5: Gender Equality. By preventing the exclusion of transgender women and other marginalized groups, the ruling ensures that life-saving services remain accessible to all survivors of violence. This action reinforces Target 5.2, which calls for the elimination of all forms of violence against all women and girls, and Target 5.1, which seeks to end all forms of discrimination against them.

Advancing SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The injunction is a critical step toward achieving SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities. The grant restrictions would have institutionalized discrimination against vulnerable populations, including immigrants and transgender people. By blocking these measures, the court upholds the principle of non-discrimination (Target 10.3) and promotes the social inclusion of all individuals, irrespective of their identity or origin (Target 10.2).

Strengthening SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

This legal outcome reinforces SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions. The ruling demonstrates the judiciary’s role in ensuring government accountability and upholding the rule of law (Target 16.3). It ensures that community-based organizations can continue their vital work to reduce violence (Target 16.1) and that access to justice and support services is not compromised by arbitrary and discriminatory agency actions (Target 16.B).

Stakeholder Impact and Response

The coalitions involved praised the order as a crucial measure to protect survivors and ensure the continuity of services mandated by Congress. They stated that the administration’s attempt to politicize essential funding was “not just unlawful, it was cruel.” The ruling alleviates the difficult choice organizations faced: either reject essential funding or risk prosecution under the False Claims Act by guessing which of their established support activities were suddenly prohibited.

Plaintiff Coalitions

1. Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence
2. California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
3. Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault
4. DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence
5. End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin: The Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence
6. Idaho Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence
7. Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence
8. Jane Doe Inc. (The Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence)
9. Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence
10. Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence
11. North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence
12. Oregon Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence
13. Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence
14. ValorUS
15. Violence Free Minnesota
16. Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance
17. Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

1. SDG 5: Gender Equality
   • The article’s central theme is the funding for organizations that combat violence against women. It repeatedly mentions “survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault” and the “Violence Against Women Act,” which directly aligns with the goal of achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls.
2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The article highlights that the proposed grant restrictions would have negatively impacted services for marginalized groups. Specifically, it mentions the prohibition of support for “immigrants, and people who are transgender” and programs related to “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” The court’s decision to block these restrictions supports the goal of reducing inequality by ensuring services remain accessible to all, irrespective of their identity or origin.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • This goal is relevant in several ways. The article discusses the need to “keep people and communities safe” from violence. Furthermore, it details a legal process where coalitions used the justice system to challenge what they considered an “unlawful” government action. The judge’s ruling, which found the administration’s actions to be “arbitrary and capricious,” reinforces the importance of accountable, transparent, and effective institutions that operate under the rule of law.

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

1. Under SDG 5: Gender Equality
   • Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres. The article is entirely focused on the work of organizations that provide “services and support” to “survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault.” The funding from the Office on Violence Against Women is critical for these efforts, directly contributing to this target.
2. Under SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status. The blocked restrictions targeted support for “immigrants, and people who are transgender,” as well as “diversity, equity, and inclusion” initiatives. The court’s decision ensures that organizations can continue to provide inclusive services to these vulnerable populations, thereby promoting their inclusion.
   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices. The lawsuit successfully challenged a government policy (the grant restrictions) that was seen as discriminatory. The judge’s order blocking the policy is a direct action toward eliminating a practice that would have created unequal outcomes for survivors from marginalized communities.
3. Under SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. The core mission of the coalitions mentioned in the article is to fight “domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and dating violence,” which directly aligns with reducing violence in communities.
   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. The article describes a legal challenge where coalitions used the court system to hold a government agency accountable. The judge’s finding that the restrictions were “unlawful” and violated the “Administrative Procedure Act” is an example of the rule of law in action. It also protects access to support for victims who may not be “prepared to do” the option of “reaching out to law enforcement.”
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The judge’s critique of the Office on Violence Against Women for its “wholly under-reasoned and arbitrary” process and its failure “to consider the impacts of its decisions” is a direct call for a government institution to be more accountable and transparent in its operations.

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

• Implied Indicator for Target 5.2: The article implies the importance of measuring the availability of and access to essential services for survivors of violence. The statement that the judge’s decision is a “critical move to ensure that survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault can get the services and support they need” suggests that the existence and funding of these services are key progress markers. The potential loss of funding meant “the organizations couldn’t do their work.”
• Implied Indicator for Target 10.3: An implied indicator is the existence and enforcement of non-discriminatory policies in service provision. The article highlights the fear among service providers that they would not be “permitted to provide the same quality of services” to transgender individuals or use their “preferred pronouns.” The successful legal challenge against these discriminatory grant conditions serves as a qualitative indicator of progress.
• Implied Indicator for Target 16.3 & 16.6: The article points to the adherence of public institutions to legal and administrative procedures as a key indicator. The judge’s ruling was based on the finding that the federal office violated the “Administrative Procedure Act” and acted in an “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.” This legal finding itself serves as an indicator of a functioning justice system holding institutions accountable.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: bostonglobe.com