Key facts
- D.C. filed a lawsuit to block HUD's headquarters relocation to Alexandria, Virginia.
- The city argues the move violates the Residence Act of 1790, requiring Congressional approval for agencies to leave D.C.
- D.C. estimates the move could result in a loss of nearly $2 million in annual sales tax revenue.
- HUD cited deteriorating conditions at its current headquarters and fiscal responsibility as reasons for the move.
- The lawsuit also alleges violations of national environmental and historic preservation laws.
The District of Columbia has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking to halt the planned relocation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) headquarters from the city to Alexandria, Virginia. D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb argues that federal offices integral to the seat of government must remain within the District unless explicitly authorized by Congress, citing the Residence Act of 1790.
The city contends that the move, which is already underway with 80% of HUD employees reportedly relocated, will result in a significant loss of annual sales tax revenue, estimated at nearly $2 million, and negatively impact businesses in Southwest D.C. This legal challenge is the second to face HUD's relocation plans, following a similar complaint from local business owners.
HUD, along with its secretary Scott Turner, the General Services Administration (GSA) and its administrator Edward Forst, and Ginnie Mae and its president Joseph Gormley are named as defendants. A HUD spokesperson stated the agency is complying with all applicable laws and that the move is necessary due to the deteriorating condition of the Robert C. Weaver Federal Building, prioritizing employee well-being and fiscal responsibility. The GSA declined to comment on the active litigation.
The District's lawsuit asserts that no Cabinet agency has moved outside D.C. without express Congressional approval, with the Pentagon being a notable exception that received such assent before World War II. The suit also claims the relocation decision was arbitrary and violates environmental and historic preservation laws.