ACLU Rhode Island Update: Slapp Suit Against Tenant Organizers / Court Blocks New Restrictions That Threaten Proven Solutions to Homelessness / Common Cause, ACLU Take on Trump Administration In Court to Protect Rhode Island Voters’ Data
ACLU OF RHODE ISLAND CHALLENGES LANDLORD’S SLAPP SUIT AGAINST TENANT ORGANIZERS
In response to a defamation lawsuit filed by controversial landlord Jeffrey Butler against tenants and tenant organizers, attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union of RI and private counsel have filed a counterclaim alleging that the lawsuit is a classic SLAPP suit aimed at chilling the tenants’ freedom of speech. The counterclaim seeks dismissal of the lawsuit and an award of attorneys’ fees. SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) are lawsuits that target individuals for exercising their rights to free speech and petition guaranteed by the First Amendment and that seek to chill that speech.
The suit and countersuit are part of a multi-year history involving Butler and his property management company, Elmwood Realty. In September 2023, tenant organizers and Reclaim RI, a non-profit agency that organizes tenants to vindicate their rights to safe and healthy housing conditions, began speaking with tenants at housing complexes managed by Butler in Pawtucket and West Warwick about organizing to address concerns about conditions in their rented homes. After learning that some of the tenants were speaking with tenant organizers, Butler threatened them with notices of eviction. The ACLU of RI, along with the Center for Justice, then sued Butler, arguing that the eviction threats against the tenants were a clear violation of state law, which prohibits retaliation against individuals for becoming members of a tenant’s rights organization or availing themselves of other remedies available to tenants for violations of housing laws.
The suit led to the entry of an interim consent agreement, under which Butler agreed not to proceed with any eviction proceedings against those tenants based on their meeting or talking with tenant organizers or reaching out to town health and safety officials, and which further acknowledged that it was “legal and within their rights for tenants to speak with organizers from a tenants’ union.”
In the meantime, in March 2024, another group of tenants at 1890 Broad Street in Cranston announced the formation of the Elmwood Tenants Union to address unsafe conditions at that property, also managed by Butler. Some of those tenants also asked for relief in Rhode Island district court. In April 2024, during a court-ordered inspection at the Broad Street property, an altercation between Butler and some tenants took place, leading to the police filing, but soon thereafter dropping, disorderly conduct charges against both sides. Local news reported on the arrests, which included video interviews with Butler and posting his mugshot. The mugshot was later posted on the Tenants Union TikTok, along with the caption “Jeffrey Butler, slumlord.” The TikTok had background music from a rap song which contained the lyric, “You are not a pimp/You’re a borderline sex offender.”
Although the TikTok was taken down shortly thereafter, more than a year later Butler brought this pending suit against the tenants and union organizers, claiming that the TikTok reference to “sex offender” defamed him. Butler is a prolific TikTok poster himself, posting hundreds of TikToks commenting on tenant organizers and a variety of other subjects.
The ACLU’s counterclaim argues that the tenant union’s TikTok post “was made as part of numerous efforts to communicate with other tenants and members of the public on a matter of public concern, being the ongoing public and publicly-reported controversy concerning substandard living conditions at 1890 Broad Street and the failure of the owner/manager, including Butler, to adequately or timely address them.”
The counterclaim notes that Butler has acknowledged he is a public figure, and argues that the post was not defamatory and that the tenants’ actions concerning Butler all involve matters of public concern protected by the state’s anti-SLAPP law.
Defendants in the suit are tenants Melissa Potter and Kellee Silva, Reclaim RI, and two tenant organizers, Shana Crandell and Cherie Cruz. They are being defended by ACLU of RI cooperating attorney Lynette Labinger and private counsel Mary Dunn.
Defendant Crandell said today: “Butler’s defamation claim is a clear attempt to chill the speech and public participation of tenants and organizers who used collective action and public pressure to force a criminally negligent landlord to make necessary repairs and stop harassing them. Such a claim must not be allowed to stand in Rhode Island, where all tenants have the right to organize a tenants’ union and speak freely and publicly about their experiences.”
Cherie Cruz, also named as a defendant, added: “I applaud the Elmwood Realty Tenant Union leaders, Kellee Silva and Melissa Potter, for their leadership and bravery fighting to uphold one of our most fundamental civil liberties, their First Amendment right to free speech.”
Court Blocks New Restrictions That Threaten Proven Solutions to Homelessness
Preliminary Injunction Pauses Unlawful Funding Condition for Housing Effort & Restores Lawful Conditions
Rhode Island Federal Judge Mary S. McElroy has today granted motions for preliminary injunction, which will temporarily block the Trump-Vance administration’s attempts to implement unlawful and unreasonable restrictions that seek to shift funding away from proven solutions to homelessness. The order comes in National Alliance to End Homelessness et al. v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), a case brought by local governments and nonprofit organizations, including Crossroads Rhode Island and Youth Pride, which seeks to prevent the administration’s harmful attempt to stop funding permanent housing projects that are keeping hundreds of thousands of people out of homelessness as cold winter months arrive.
For years and through multiple administrations, HUD’s Continuum of Care (CoC) Program has helped provide the necessary resources for local governments and organizations to fund permanent housing projects for veterans, seniors, people with disabilities, and individuals and families with children experiencing homelessness. On November 13, 2025, however, without explanation, HUD rescinded a necessary program notice, replacing it with one that threatens existing services.
This new November 13 notice was withdrawn by HUD on December 1, hours before a hearing in the case brought by local governments and nonprofit organizations. Judge McElroy’s order from the bench today, which will be followed by a written order, blocks the implementation of dangerous changes to the CoC program — even as the government has threatened to issue another new funding announcement.
After more than a decade of prioritizing evidence-based approaches that reduce homelessness, as the complaint explains, any changes to the Notice of Funding Opportunity threaten to upend the stability of the program required by law, will have devastating impacts for plaintiffs, and cause hundreds of thousands of children, youth, adults, and families to become homeless.
The Coalition Released the Following Statement in Response to the Order
“This order offers local governments and nonprofit organizations doing the hard and important work of supporting people experiencing homelessness some much-needed relief after the threat of harmful new conditions imposed by the Trump-Vance administration. Today’s order means that more than 170,000 people – families, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities – have respite from the government’s assault. The Trump-Vance administration has suggested it would double-down on its unlawful and unreasonable effort to kick people out of housing and back into homelessness with a new policy shift. We will continue to pursue this case and remain dedicated to protecting proven solutions to homelessness and the hundreds of thousands of people who rely on this housing support.”
Besides Crossroads Rhode Island and Youth Pride, Inc., the coalition behind the lawsuit includes the National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH) and the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), as well as the County of Santa Clara, Calif., San Francisco, Calif., King County, Wash., Boston, Mass., Cambridge, Mass., Nashville, Tenn., and Tucson, Ariz.
Democracy Forward and the ACLU Foundation of Rhode Island represent the coalition of nonprofit organizations in the matter; the National Homelessness Law Center represents NAEH and NLIHC; Public Rights Project represents the cities of Boston, Cambridge, Nashville and Tucson; and Santa Clara County and San Francisco represent themselves. The Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island represents all plaintiffs.
Quotes-from-Plaintiffs-and-Counsel-—-NAEH-v.-HUD (2)
Complaint-—-National-Alliance-to-End-Homelessness-v.-U.S.-Department-of-Housing-and-Urban-Development- (1)
COMMON CAUSE, ACLU TAKE ON TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IN COURT TO PROTECT RHODE ISLAND VOTERS’ DATA
Common Cause and some individual voters have today intervened in a recently filed lawsuit in order to prevent the U.S. Department of Justice from obtaining sensitive, non-public information contained in the Rhode Island state voter file. The organization and voters, represented by attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and ACLU of Rhode Island, seek to stop the federal government’s overreach and potential misuse of voters’ sensitive data.
The Department of Justice has requested Rhode Island’s entire non-public voter file, which includes not only names and addresses, but full dates of birth and driver’s license numbers and/or social security number information. State officials offered to provide the data that is available to the public, but the Department of Justice sued the State for all of its voter data.
The request from the federal government is part of a reported effort to assemble a national voter database, which Congress has never authorized, and which could be used to try to disenfranchise legitimate voters. The federal government’s use of private voter data would also make this sensitive information more vulnerable to hackers and scammers.
The motion to intervene argues that the federal government does not have a proper purpose under the law for requesting this data. The individuals participating in the ACLU’s motion include a recently naturalized citizen and a person who recently moved from out of state and re-registered to vote in Rhode Island. Voters like these are particularly threatened by the federal government’s efforts, as faulty data matching could easily be used to wrongfully disenfranchise them.
“This dangerous directive puts our sensitive information at risk simply so the Trump Administration can spread election lies,” said John Marion, Common Cause Rhode Island Executive Director. “Handing this data over to the federal government violates the law. Common Cause is fighting to keep Rhode Islanders safe from senseless data fraud and abuse.”
“Voters in Rhode Island and across the country deserve to know that their personal information is secure, protected, and used only for its intended purpose of maintaining accurate voter registration records,” said Maryam Jazini Dorcheh, Senior Director of Litigation at Common Cause. “We are committed to defending voters’ rights and privacy in Rhode Island and nationwide, and this case is one of many where we are stepping in to ensure those protections are upheld.”
“Privacy is essential — especially as related to a right as fundamental as voting. The Department of Justice has no need for voters’ personal information,” said Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of RI. “This is why we’re intervening in this case: To protect the rights of Rhode Island voters, and to prevent the potential misuse of Rhode Islanders’ data.”
“Rhode Islanders deserve to have their sensitive personal information protected – not abused by federal authorities,” said Ari Savitzky, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “This voter data could be misused to justify large-scale voter purges based on faulty database matching techniques cooked up by election deniers. Federal overreach of this kind threatens voters’ privacy and their fundamental right to participate in our democracy.”
Complaint-–-US-v.-Amore
