Charlene Crowell is a senior fellow with the Center for Responsible Lending.
By Charlene Crowell
For nearly 60 years, April has observed Fair Housing Month. But this year, attorneys general (AGs) from 15 states and the District of Columbia recently filed a joint lawsuit seeking to ensure state and federal agencies will continue to fully enforce the landmark federal Fair Housing Act (FHA), first enacted in 1968 to protect people from unlawful housing discrimination and to punish bad actors.
Filed on March 16 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the lawsuit alleges violations of the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. It also challenges a Trump administration executive order that directs HUD to end consideration of a crucial mechanism for combating housing discrimination: disparate impact.
“HUD, without legal authority, is effectively undermining state laws that offer stronger protections than federal law,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who co-leads the effort. “My fellow attorneys general and I are united in our answer: not on our watch. HUD’s guidance is unlawful and would only roll back the progress we’ve made to keep our families safe from discrimination that limits where they can live.”
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, the lawsuit’s other co-lead, offered similar comments.
“These actions are part of a broader, ongoing effort by the Trump administration to subvert the legal protections our country has put in place to combat discrimination and to tear down the hard-fought progress we have made for civil rights,” Raoul said. “I will continue to fight for fair access to housing for all Americans and for the rule of law.”
In response to the lawsuit, HUD Secretary Scott Turner said, “Leftist state attorneys general have run to a San Francisco courthouse in a desperate attempt to obstruct President Trump’s America First agenda through political lawfare. Their latest stunt will not succeed.”
But for the thousands of people taking time and effort to file fair housing complaints, the law – not Trump’s agenda – remains the valid concern.
According to the National Fair Housing Alliance, 32,321 fair housing complaints were received in 2024, the most recent data available. Of these complaints, only 0.14 percent were processed by the Department of Justice and 4.85 percent were processed by HUD. The bulk of these complaints – 74.12 percent – were processed by only 82 private, non-profit fair housing organizations. Although this year’s approved HUD budget is $77.3 billion, only $86 million is allotted for fair housing, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.
From the law’s inception, HUD and state and local agencies have operated in partnership through the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP). HUD’s FHAP funds support investigations of housing discrimination complaints, lawsuit filings, staff training, and community outreach.
The landmark law prohibits discrimination based on seven protected traits: (1) race, (2) color, (3) national origin, (4) religion, (5) sex, (6) familial status, (7) disability. Now HUD has threatened to decertify agencies wherever state laws expanded federal protected classes. In such locales, both complaint referrals and funding would be cut off.
But state AGs say the FHA Act and its later amendments establish a floor — not a ceiling — for protection against housing discrimination.
The administration began fair housing rule rollbacks in January, when HUD published its intent to remove its discriminatory effects regulations and leave to courts questions related to interpretations of disparate impact liability under the Fair Housing Act.
That move took its cues from an April 2025 executive order (EO) entitled, Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy that states in part, “It is the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible to avoid violating the Constitution, Federal civil rights laws, and basic American ideals.”
After analyzing the EO, the Congressional Black Caucus issued its detailed opposition saying in part, “Without disparate impact liability, the agencies will now have to prove malicious intent in order to punish bad faith actors, which requires a much higher burden of proof and will lead to more instances of unchecked discrimination.”
Procedurally, proposed federal agency rules must allow a 30-day public comment period. As comments are reviewed, agencies can gain additional insights and opportunities to modify changes before finalization. By the time the 30-day public comment period on disparate impact expired, a total of 607 comments were filed – most in opposition to the change including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF).
“It’s clear the attacks on disparate impact are part of the administration’s broader efforts to undermine civil rights law,” said Demetria McCain, LDF’s Director of Policy. “Rather than fulfilling the promise of the Fair Housing Act and making housing affordable and accessible to everyone, HUD is abdicating its responsibilities and leaving communities at risk of deep social and economic harm… And we call on HUD to immediately reverse course with its gutting of the regulation and fulfill its duty to enforce it.”
No Comment