Sixteen states and the District of Columbia are challenging guidance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that plaintiffs allege imposes new rules and funding conditions they say could weaken state protections against housing discrimination — and their ability to investigate them. 

The lawsuit focuses on two HUD memos in September detailing how it will prioritize resources for cases with clear evidence of intentional discrimination.

HUD withdrew several fair housing documents including guidance policies on disparate impact — a theory of discrimination where neutral-seeming policies disproportionately exclude or harm certain groups — along with procedures for referring discrimination cases to the Department of Justice, and credit programs aimed at expanding access to housing. 

On April 11, it will be 58 years since President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Fair Housing Act into law in an effort to combat housing discrimination and partner HUD with state and local agencies to enforce those laws. Through the Fair Housing Assistance Program, HUD refers complaints to state agencies, which use HUD funding to investigate cases, train staff and conduct outreach.

The September memos stipulated that state agencies receiving HUD dollars to enforce fair housing laws won’t be reimbursed for cases regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, criminal record, source of income or English-language proficiency.

Attorneys general filing the lawsuit say HUD has significantly reduced staffing and the number of discrimination cases it pursues, while dismissing whistleblowers who raised concerns about the agency’s ability to enforce fair housing laws or look into acts of housing discrimination.

If the HUD changes go through, many state laws could be in conflict with this guidance. 

Several states, including some represented in the lawsuit, have fair housing laws that extend protections beyond those covered by federal law and could be impacted by HUD’s guidance.

Included in the lawsuit alongside are attorneys general from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Among state laws that offer protections cited in the HUD memos, California state law protects tenants based on sexual orientation, gender identity and lawful source of income, including housing vouchers. 

Other states such as Illinois and Washington extend protections based on immigration status. Colorado, Massachusetts and Rhode Island also provide protection against discrimination on the basis of identities such as gender identity, sexual orientation and source of income.

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

Amid a slew of proposed changes scaling the federal government’s role in broadening assistance in federal rental programs, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development plans to rescind a 2024 regulation requiring public housing agencies and certain federally subsidized landlords to give 30 days’ notice before filing for eviction based on unpaid rent. 

Under the proposed HUD changes, those 30 days would give way to older standards, which vary by housing program and state law, and which can be as little as a few days’ notice. 

The proposed HUD rule also would eliminate requirements that landlords include detailed information about rent charges or available assistance in eviction notices.

Many states and localities already require 30-day or longer notices before a landlord can proceed with an eviction for nonpayment of rent, though some are far shorter. California, for example, generally requires at least three–day “pay or quit” notices for nonpayment of rent, meaning tenants have three days to pay the rent or move out. 

The current HUD rule also requires that landlords provide tenants with a ledger showing how their balance was calculated and information about how to obtain a rent decrease if they have lost income. Tenants’ advocates argue the detail allows transparency over how much is owed and when. Without the rule’s protection, advocates say, HUD tenants in some parts of the country could be evicted for being as little as one dollar short or one day late on rent. 

Several tenants’ rights groups have already filed legal challenges, arguing that the rollback was issued without proper public notice and comment. If the rule remains in effect, housing providers and tenant advocates say its impact will depend largely on states’ eviction laws. 

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

As the Trump administration continues to focus on the legal immigration statuses of many across the country, a revived proposal by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development could impact many families’ ability to receive rental assistance.

The proposed rule would prohibit “mixed-status” families  —  those including U.S. citizens and people without legal immigration status — from living in public and other subsidized housing. It would apply to HUD public housing, Section 8 rental assistance, and some housing development grants. 

Current regulations allow mixed-status families to receive decreased assistance based on the number of household members with legal status. The proposed rule would limit that assistance to 30 days as HUD verifies family members’ legal status. 

HUD Secretary Scott Turner has said the change could redirect $218 million to other qualifying families. 

“The law is clear: Housing assistance must only go to eligible individuals. This requirement exists to protect the families and taxpayers who fund the nation’s welfare system. It draws a hard line,” Turner wrote last week in an opinion piece in the Washington Post. He wrote that some 24,000 people living in HUD-assisted housing are likely ineligible. 

HUD’s own analyses from previous mixed-status rule discussions estimated there are about 25,000 mixed-status households living in HUD-assisted housing, fewer than 1% of all households receiving federal rental aid.

The proposed rule would update regulations barring HUD from providing assistance to individuals who are not U.S. citizens or do not have legal or eligible immigration status. Under this proposal, all assistance-eligible tenants and applicants under housing programs — regardless of age  — would need to verify their citizenship or status.

This proposal was initiated in 2019 under the first Trump administration, but was blocked. The rule would remove the existing “do not contend” option, end certain exemptions for older participants and expand the use of Social Security numbers and the federal SAVE system for status verification. The SAVE system (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) is run under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and also is being used to help verify voter citizenship status and public benefits eligibility. 

Nearly three-quarters of potentially affected households live in California, Texas and New York, according to the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ analysis of HUD administrative data. California accounts for the largest share of affected families, followed by Texas and New York. In these states, thousands of households that currently receive prorated rental assistance could lose eligibility entirely if the rule is finalized, rental housing advocates warn.

These states also have high housing costs in concert with long waiting lists for assistance. The policy would primarily affect families with children, many of whom are U.S. citizens, and could increase demand for emergency housing and other local safety-net services, advocates say.

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates 80,000 people could lose housing assistance, including an estimated 37,000 children, nearly all of whom are U.S. citizens.

The proposal is open for public comment through April 21.

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

WASHINGTON — Republicans, Democrats and the White House are methodically, calmly inching toward a common goal: agreeing on a thick package of laws that would do something quickly about slowing housing costs and boosting supply.

There’s no talk of gridlock here. No partisan sniping. Just an under the radar effort to show constituents in an election year that their lawmakers realize there’s a big problem when it comes to buying homes.

That’s why the House earlier this month passed its version of housing reform with only nine dissenting votes. The Senate committee writing similar legislation approved it unanimously last year.

While there are still some obstacles ahead before anything reaches President Donald Trump’s desk, what’s happening is almost a throwback to the days when getting 80% of one’s plan was a big victory, a policy prize to tout back home as midterm elections near.

“There is no silver bullet for fixing this problem,” said Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb., chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee. 

But, he added, “I think that this bill, this legislation, includes a range of meaningful housing reforms that will add to housing supply and ultimately decrease housing costs.”

Housing shortage 

The House and Senate bills have a common purpose, said Emma Waters, senior policy analyst at Washington’s Bipartisan Policy Center. “Both bills really are pushing to make it easier to build more affordable homes,” she said. 

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., a member of the House Financial Services Committee, explained the House bill this way: “It ensures that every dollar we do spend goes further.”

An analysis by the Zillow Group, a real estate company that researches home prices and trends, last summer found that in 2023, about 1.4 million new homes were added to the housing stock, but there were 1.8 million newly formed families.

As a result, the housing shortage was up to 4.7 million units. Other estimates put it as high as 7 million.

The typical home price in January in the United States was $359,078, up 0.2% from a year earlier, Zillow found. Prices depend on a wide variety of factors, including labor costs, cost of materials, interest rates, supply and demand and more.

What government can do

The congressional legislation tries to help ease supply and stabilize prices as much as the government can at this point. 

The House and Senate bills share several similar provisions. The  Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington-based research organization, estimated that the House bill includes pieces of at least 43 different House or Senate bills, 27 of which have had bipartisan support.

Under the House plan, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development would update the department’s construction standards for manufactured housing. The Senate bill has similar provisions.

Rep. John Rose, R-Tenn., a housing subcommittee member, explained the problem: “Municipalities across the country have restricted or outright banned homes built on permanent steel chassis. The result has been less construction, higher costs, and fewer opportunities for working families to own where they live.”

The House bill would provide money for “pattern books” for such housing that would feature pre-approved plans that could speed up the approval process.

The legislation would also provide “a lot of provisions to make it easier for state and local governments to reduce regulatory barriers,” said Waters.

The bills would allow money from Community Development Block Grants, which help fund neighborhood projects, to better support housing production.

The Senate bill would reward CDBG recipients that have, unrelated to their other CDBG projects, increased their housing production in the previous year. 

As a reward for building more housing in the previous year, those jurisdictions would receive additional CDBG funding, but there are still restrictions on how those funds can be used. 

The House bill, though, would change the restriction so that CDBG money could be used for housing construction.

Help for consumers

Housing experts believe a reason landlords balk is they’re reluctant to endure the government’s inspection process; the bills would streamline that process. Landlords would get incentives to accept tenants with rent vouchers.

The HOME Investment Partnerships Program, which aids state and local efforts to provide housing for lower income families, would also get a makeover of sorts in the bills. 

For instance, the House bill says environmental impact statements would no longer be needed for many projects, and it would be easier to tap money from the HOME budget.

Also likely to help consumers: making it easier for banks, usually community institutions that focus on local needs, to invest in more affordable housing. The House bill would raise the public investment welfare cap, allowing more such investments.

Rep. French Hill, R-Ark., was enthusiastic about this provision. “Our bill helps banks access stable deposit funding, streamlines the exam process that’s tailored particularly for our vital community banks, and helps promote more community banks to do what they do best, lend locally and support their communities,” said Hill, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, in a statement.

What’s ahead 

The banking provision is one of the few major areas where the Senate and House disagree. There’s concern among some Democrats that the House bill lifts too many bank regulatory barriers.

“We have a bipartisan bill with unanimous support in the Senate that will help build more housing and lower costs for the American people. I’m glad to see the House move forward on housing proposals,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee.

But, she said, “House Republicans should not hold housing relief hostage to push forward several bank deregulatory bills that will make our community banks more fragile while harming consumers, small businesses, and economic growth.”

Also having potential to stymie negotiations is the White House’s eagerness to ban institutional investors from buying single family homes. There’s not much congressional support for that idea.

Trump last month issued an executive order telling “key agencies to issue guidance preventing relevant Federal programs from approving, insuring, guaranteeing, securitizing, or facilitating sales of single-family homes to institutional investors.”

Staying upbeat

There’s still a sense in the Capitol that Republicans and Democrats will come together on a major housing bill, particularly since Congress and the White House agree on most key provisions and leading interest groups are helping push legislation forward.

The National Association of Realtors has been enthusiastic about the House and Senate bills. 

 “By addressing barriers at every level of government, the legislation will make it faster and cheaper to build new homes,” the organization said after the House passed the housing reform  bill. The Realtors had similar praise for the Senate version.

The Affordable Housing Tax Credit Coalition also liked the House bill, as CEO Emily Cadik called it “a set of common sense, bipartisan housing proposals that would increase the supply of affordable housing.”

Most in Washington who follow housing policy closely are upbeat about the legislation’s prospects.

“It’s all pretty positive stuff,” said Waters.