HUD Moves to End Fair Housing Rule That Shelters Battered Spouses

The “disparate impact rule” has been used in cases involving domestic violence survivors and others in vulnerable housing situations. This rule is often used to help keep at-risk people in safe, healthful, stable housing.

Now, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) plans to cancel the rule.

Taking Fairness Seriously… Or Not?

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 opened the door for people long shut out of housing opportunities. “Disparate impact” means certain groups continually face tougher struggles, even when “fair” laws are followed. So, HUD and civil rights advocates use it as a tool in furtherance of truly fair housing access.

The Trump administration wants the rule gone. Current HUD Secretary Scott Turner vowed to “end the agency’s use of disparate impact theory.”

This provision, which protects victims of sex-based discrimination, is not simply a theory. The disparate impact rule has been recognized by courts as a valid interpretation of the Fair Housing Act. It helps housing providers follow the impact standards that exist in the Fair Housing Act. The Supreme Court itself has upheld the rule as a key component of the Fair Housing Act’s real-life application.

But the Trump administration has taken steps that differ from the traditional role of the executive branch. That is, the federal government has reduced staffing levels and enforcement activity in fair housing offices, including within roles that have long been responsible for enforcing housing protections under the Violence Against Women Act. As previously noted, the administration also began cutting off funding for fair housing organizations, including those for which Congress had already approved funding.

Since then, HUD dismissed hundreds of people from their jobs. Many were staffers in the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Then it stopped fair housing investigations on the grounds that there aren’t enough staffers to manage them.

Housing Rule Against Discrimination Levels the Field for Women

There’s a gender gap in housing. It’s a key aspect of the struggles many women deal with in an economically skewed society.

Not long ago, a woman could not finance homeownership alone.  Women weren’t allowed to build credit in their own names. Finally, in 1974, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act came into being. Its point? To ensure women had access to loans. (The Trump administration is targeting that law for a rollback.)

To this day, getting approved for a mortgage is still harder for women. This economic reality creates higher risks for battered spouses (who are mostly women).

The American Civil Liberties Union and its Pennsylvania branch have gone to court for people facing violence at home. The groups have legally confronted eviction practices. The practices occur under ordinances that press deed holders to evict renters who call the police.

But people who face violence at home should not be penalized for acting self-protectively. Indeed, HUD agreed that this ordinance was unfair. HUD brought a fair housing complaint claiming a disparate impact on female renters. And the eviction practice was stopped.

Other practices too have been successfully challenged for their disparate effect on women and minority renters. One example comes out of Cook County, Illinois. Landlords were rejecting rental applicants based on prior eviction cases (including old or dropped cases).

New Stress on Families: The Targeting of Mixed Status Households

Through HUD, the administration has looked for ways to shrink housing benefits. The latest shock to many vulnerable families came in February. That’s when HUD said it intends to make its housing support contingent on the immigration status of every person in a household.

Many people live in “mixed-status” households. This means only some of the household’s members qualify for support based on their citizenship or their green cards. Others in these homes do not qualify.  

There are some 80,000 people in these homes. This figure includes tens of thousands of children. Almost all of the children are citizens of the United States.

As things stand, all of the members of a mixed-status household may live in a funded home. The amount of financial aid matches the number of eligible household members “in status.” The statute allows this. And Congress has endorsed it, on the basis that families should not face separation.

What if the current administration backtracks on this longstanding statute, and makes immigrants ineligible? The expectation could be that deed holders are the ones expected to tell the federal government that a resident is out of status. These landlords are around to manage and provide housing for neighborhoods. Not to become informants.

Hacking away at HUD’s subsidies makes affordable housing harder to find than it already is. That might be one reason so many people oppose the administration’s attempts to take the assistance away. The proposed change for mixed-status households was shot down in the first Trump term, amidst a very loud public outcry.  

Targeting Funds That Currently Assist Millions of People

HUD has proposed yet another rule that would set renters back. It would put still more distance between the U.S. renter population and possible homeownership. Managers would be able to limit their rental terms for “work-capable adults” to whom they rent. Under one percent of U.S. public housing authorities have such rules today, says HUD.

The Affordable Housing Finance group quotes Attorney Korey Lundin of the National Housing Law Project (NHLP) as saying the rule proposal is designed to take housing aid away from millions. In reality, Lundin says, most everyone who can work, does work. Many, in fact, work more than one job, and still find the current housing market forbidding.

Another example of the federal government’s rollback of assistance involves the Special Purpose Credit Programs for conventional loans. Loans with credits, backed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, have boosted the financial strength of working and minority home buyers. In short, Special Purpose Credit Programs made acquiring a deed possible for many who’d otherwise be sidelined.

So the playing field is all the more skewed. Consider this statistic from the National Fair Housing Alliance. People identified as non-white are turned down by lenders at twice the rate of their white counterparts. Even when their credit and finances look about the same.

Our interest is not what side of politics anyone is on. It’s about whether people can get access to deeds. And it’s about whether people have shelter and safety. On both of those scores, current policy is not trending well.