Maryland Attorney General Joins National Effort to Protect Fair Housing Protections

Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown has joined a coalition of 24 state attorneys general in submitting a formal comment letter to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The letter expresses strong opposition to a proposed rollback of regulations designed to uphold the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The current regulations prohibit housing discrimination not only based on explicit intent but also on the discriminatory effects of a policy, even if unintentional. The proposed change by HUD seeks to remove any mention of liability for discrimination that arises from the effects of housing policies.

The coalition, including Attorney General Brown, argues that discrimination and segregation in housing remain persistent issues across the country, disproportionately affecting individuals of color, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, people with disabilities, and other historically marginalized communities. By advocating for the retention of current rules, the attorneys general aim to ensure continued progress toward greater equality of opportunity in housing for all residents. They contend that the concept of “discriminatory effects liability” is an essential mechanism for both federal and state agencies to enforce the FHA and corresponding state laws. This liability allows for the challenge of policies that, while appearing neutral on their face, can lead to discriminatory outcomes.

The attorneys general highlight that states have successfully utilized claims based on discriminatory effects to challenge various housing-related policies. Examples include zoning ordinances, restrictions on the number of occupants, no-pet policies, and English-only rules, all of which can inadvertently create barriers to housing based on protected characteristics such as race, ethnicity, sex, familial status, and disability. Removing these regulations, they argue, would not only increase the administrative burden on state agencies tasked with informing the public about their rights and responsibilities but would also send a harmful message that certain forms of unlawful discrimination are now permissible, despite remaining prohibited by law.

Furthermore, the coalition asserts that HUD’s proposed rule change is legally questionable. They maintain that HUD has failed to provide adequate justification for eliminating these long-standing regulations. The existing rule, they argue, accurately reflects federal law and offers significant public benefit by providing a clear, consistent national standard for understanding what constitutes a violation of the FHA and the legal framework for pursuing and defending against such discrimination claims. The participating states in this coalition include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Article by Mel Anara, based upon information from the Maryland Attorney General.

---