A federal judge decided on Friday that the Trump administration can’t attach conditions to grants aimed at fighting domestic violence, such as forbidding groups from promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, or providing abortion-related resources.

U.S. District Court Judge Melissa DuBose in Providence, Rhode Island, approved a request from 17 statewide anti-domestic and sexual violence groups for a preliminary injunction. This decision prevents the Trump administration from imposing its conditions while the case is ongoing.

Judge DuBose stated in her decision, “Without this preliminary relief, the Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm, affecting crucial services to victims of homelessness and domestic or sexual violence.” She added, “Granting this relief requires Defendants to simply evaluate grant applications and distribute funds as they normally would.”

Moreover, Judge DuBose extended her ruling’s scope beyond just the plaintiffs to include any applicant seeking funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward, one of the groups representing the plaintiffs, expressed, “Organizations assisting survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, LGBTQ+ youth, and homeless individuals shouldn’t have to compromise their mission or erase the identities of those they serve to stay operational. These harmful policies prioritize extreme agendas over people’s dignity and safety by limiting crucial federal support.”

Emily Martin, chief program officer at the National Women’s Law Center, another representative of the coalitions, also expressed approval of the decision.

“When this administration claims to be targeting ‘illegal DEI’ and ‘gender ideology,’ what it is really trying to do is strip life-saving services from survivors of sexual violence and domestic violence, LGBTQ+ youth, and people without homes,” Martin said. “Today’s order makes clear that these federal grants exist to serve people in need, not to advance a regressive political agenda.”

Neither HUD nor HHS responded to a request for comment.

In their July lawsuit, the groups said the Trump administration was putting them in a difficult position.

If they don’t apply for federal money allocated under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, they might not be able to provide rape crisis centers, battered women’s shelters and other programs to support victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. But if the groups do apply, they said they would be forced to “fundamentally change their programming, abandon outreach methods and programs designed to best serve their communities, and risk exposing themselves to ruinous liability.”

The groups suing, including organizations combating domestic violence from California to Rhode Island, argue the conditions violate the First Amendment. They also argue that the conditions violate the Administrative Procedure Act by exceeding defendants’ authority by “in some cases outright conflicting with governing law or failing to follow required procedure.”

The government argues that the matter has to do with payments to these groups and, as such, should be handled by the Court of Federal Claims.

Even if the jurisdiction argument fails, the government argues federal agencies may impose conditions on funding that “further certain policies and priorities consistent with the authority provided by grant program statutes.”

“Both agencies have long required compliance with federal antidiscrimination law as a condition of receiving a federal grant,” the government wrote in court documents.