Law360 (May 15, 2026, 6:05 PM EDT) -- The U.S. Department of Justice told a Rhode Island federal judge that a stay blocking grant conditions tied to immigration status and diversity efforts should apply only to several programs and that a nonprofit coalition is improperly trying to expand its reach.

In a filing on Thursday, the DOJ said a motion to clarify filed by the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence and more than a dozen of its allies has asked the court to stretch its stay order far beyond several specific victim assistance grant programs identified in a motion for preliminary relief and considered by the judge.

The DOJ said it continues to object to any relief provided beyond the named plaintiffs involved in the litigation, but reasonably understood the court's order to apply "not only to the grants awarded to plaintiffs, but also to grants awarded to non-parties under those three same programs."

"Nothing in the court's order, however, suggests that the stay applies to hundreds of other grant programs administered by the DOJ that plaintiffs do not challenge in this case," it added.

U.S. District Judge Melissa R. DuBose issued the stay in mid-April.

The challenged conditions allegedly prevented grant recipients from using funds to serve removable noncitizens and unauthorized immigrants, and required recipients to certify that they do not engage in diversity, equity and inclusion activities that violate federal anti-discrimination laws.

The nonprofit coalition asked the court to clarify its order at the end of April. They told the court the DOJ had interpreted the stay to apply only to a trio of grant programs, including grants provided by the Victims of Crime Act and additional VOCA grants to provide services to crime victims, as well as pet shelter grants that provide funding to serve domestic violence survivors and their pets.

The coalition told the court it sought relief with respect to the two new conditions the DOJ had started imposing on grants, and that the court preliminarily stayed the DOJ's implementation of those conditions under Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act.

"Defendants acknowledge that the court's order does not apply 'solely to the plaintiffs in this case,' yet claim that the stay is limited to three grant programs, even though the stayed conditions are not limited to those three programs," the nonprofit coalition said in an April 30 filing.

According to the coalition, nothing in the court's order suggested the challenged conditions were likely unlawful only in regard to the three grant programs.

"Defendants' interpretation that the court's order is limited to just three particular grant programs is inconsistent with how a Section 705 stay operates as well as the terms of the court's order," the coalition said, asking the court to clarify that its order applies to the grant conditions generally.

"Because those conditions have been stayed, those conditions currently have no effect and are 'divest[ed] … of enforceability,' no matter which grant program DOJ might attempt to apply them to," the coalition added.

The DOJ, however, argued that the coalition is pushing to "dramatically expand" the order beyond the grant programs that have been litigated to include a slew of other programs involving other statutes, policies and recipients.

"That theory would mean a grantee with standing to challenge a single grant program could obtain sweeping relief affecting hundreds of grant programs and thousands of grants across the entire Department of Justice," the DOJ told the court.

"Allowing such broad relief would not constitute a clarification," it added.

In the April order, Judge DuBose said the federal government seemed to have failed entirely to consider how much time and effort the nonprofits would have to spend to try to comply with the challenged conditions, or whether they would be able to comply with them without violating other statutory requirements.

The plaintiffs, which include coalitions serving domestic violence and sexual assault victims in a number of states, filed suit in June 2025 and amended their complaint in February.

A representative for the plaintiffs declined to comment on Friday. The DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Plaintiffs are represented by Kristin Bateman, Robin F. Thurston and Skye L. Perryman of Democracy Forward Foundation, Daniel F. Jacobson, Lynn D. Eisenberg, Brian C. Rosen-Shaud, Nina C. Cahill and Kyla M. Snow of Jacobson Lawyers Group PLLC, Amy R. Romero of DeLuca Weizenbaum Barry & Revens Ltd., Lynette Labinger of the ACLU Foundation of Rhode Island, and Lauren A. Khouri and Elizabeth E. Theran of the National Women's Law Center.

The government is represented by Brett A. Shumate, Eric J. Hamilton, Andrew Ward and Kathryn Barragan of the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division.

The case is Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence et al. v. Todd Blanche et al., case number 1:25-cv-00279, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

--Additional reporting by Joyce Hanson and Crystal Owens. Editing by Vaqas Asghar.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.