Nice try, Vermont Legal Aid, but the judge tossed you out of court. And in a nice little development, essentially blamed legislative Democrats for enabling the abrupt end of the motel voucher program. On we go with the unhousing!

Judge Timothy Tomasi rejected VLA’s request for an injunction halting the evictions scheduled to begin today (under a nice hot 90-degree sun). He saw little chance that VLA would succeed in its case, hence there were no grounds to stop the process pending a full hearing in court. This, despite the fact that Tomasi’s decision included the sentence: “The Court agrees that removing persons from their rightful homes and subjecting them to homelessness is an irreparable harm.”

Mighty white of him to notice, but gosh darn it, their particular “irreparable harm” doesn’t have a judicial remedy according to Tomasi.

I had a feeling the judge would find a way around Legal Aid’s argument. Standing in the way of a government action isn’t something the courts take lightly. (Unless we’re talking the John Roberts Supreme Court, of course.) His decision is still a big disappointment since VLA seemed to have strong arguments. But the judge found reason to ignore those arguments, thanks in large part to the Legislature. Yay, Democrats!

Tomasi put heavy weight on the Legislature’s decision to end the voucher program. Indeed, he wrote that legislative approval effectively negated VLA’s arguments about the Scott administration’s clumsy mismanagement of the program. He cited precedent that said ““Official action that is legislative in nature is not subject to the notice and hearing requirements of the due process clause.”

There is a narrow exception, he wrote, when legislation deprives property rights, but “a person must have a legitimate claim of an ongoing entitlement” to the property in question. Voucher clients have no such ongoing entitlement, cruel as it might be to precipitously throw them out.

And here’s where VLA came a cropper. It had argued that the Scott administration had failed to follow the rulemaking process and had repeatedly failed to provide notice to clients that their circumstances were changing. Tomasi acknowledged that he had “ongoing doubts about the quality of the notice” provided to clients, but given his determinations about the Legislature’s action and the clients’ lack of protected property rights, “he Court need not reach the issues raised as to the adequacy of the notice.”

In short, proper legal procedure was more important than providing justice for those most in need of it. Sorry, unhoused Vermonters: The Legislature acted according to the rules, and that settles it.

The last best hope for extending the voucher program will be in the Legislature’s veto override session starting June 20, but there’s some bad news on that front as well. If the group of 17 Dem/Prog lawmakers remain determined to block any budget that doesn’t continue the voucher program, they risk imperiling the good stuff in the budget like major investments in housing, child care, universal school meals, and sorely needed increases in Medicaid reimbursement rates. But that’s a story for next time.