A New York appeals court on Thursday overturned a state law designed to prevent landlords from discriminating against tenants who leverage government assistance to pay their rent. The ruling is a significant setback for low-income renters and the efforts to secure housing for them across the state.
Ruling Details
The five-judge panel ruled against New York Attorney General Letitia James, determining that the 2019 law violated the constitutional rights of property owners. The law prohibited “source of income” discrimination against tenants using federal Section 8 vouchers, but the court found that the program’s requirement for building safety inspections infringed upon those rights.
Section 8 tenants typically contribute no more than 30% of their income toward rent, with the voucher covering the remaining balance. The court acknowledged that the law was enacted in response to existing discrimination faced by voucher holders, who often encounter bias based on factors like race or family status.
Even though, the judges determined that the law forced landlords to consent to “governmental searches of their rental properties and records,” violating the Fourth Amendment. The Section 8 program mandates inspections and documentation to ensure housing quality, prevent fraud, and verify income eligibility.
Reactions and Next Steps
Halimah Elmariah, a spokesperson for Attorney General James, stated that the office is reviewing the ruling and considering a potential appeal. Matt Rauschenbach, a spokesperson for New York City Hall, said city officials are “evaluating any potential implications for New York City.”
The case originated from a 2022 lawsuit filed by Attorney General James against Ithaca landlord Jason Fane, owner of Ithaca Renting Company, after tenants reported being denied apartments due to their use of Section 8 vouchers. Fane argued that participating in the program would require him to open his properties and records to government inspections. A state judge initially sided with Fane, a decision that was then appealed.
Fane’s attorney, Curtis Johnson, expressed satisfaction with the appeals court’s decision, stating that previous rulings have affirmed his client’s right to avoid a program requiring him to “waive its Fourth Amendment rights.”
Legal Aid Society attorney Evan Henley, who supported the attorney general’s case, called the decision “fundamentally flawed” and expressed hope for an appeal to the state’s highest court. He warned that the ruling could increase discrimination against voucher holders and potentially impact other forms of rental assistance.
Broader Implications
The ruling could have wider consequences, potentially allowing landlords to deny applicants based on any form of rental assistance or to challenge existing local anti-discrimination laws, including one established in New York City in 2008. New York City also provides rental assistance through CityFHEPS, a city-funded program serving over 60,000 households at a cost exceeding $1 billion, as well as subsidies for individuals with HIV/AIDS.
The city recently expanded CityFHEPS to include apartments outside the five boroughs, prompting some towns and counties to enact rules blocking landlords from accepting tenants with CityFHEPS vouchers. Neither the state nor the city has challenged these local bans.
Frequently Asked Questions
What prompted the lawsuit that led to this ruling?
The lawsuit stemmed from a 2022 case filed by Attorney General Letitia James against Ithaca landlord Jason Fane after two tenants reported being denied apartments because they used Section 8 vouchers to pay rent.
What did the appeals court determine about the Section 8 program?
The court determined that the Section 8 program’s requirement for building safety inspections violated the Fourth Amendment rights of property owners.
How many households in New York City currently use Section 8 vouchers?
Roughly 123,000 households in New York City use the Section 8 program to pay a portion of their rent.
As this ruling takes effect, how might the landscape of housing accessibility shift for those relying on rental assistance programs?
