Kaptur, Brown, Beatty, Landsman Send Letter to HUD Opposing Rollback of Fair Housing Anti-Discrimination Enforcement
Toledo, OH – Today, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (OH-09), joined Congresswoman Shontel Brown (OH-11), Congresswoman Joyce Beatty (OH-03), and Congressman Greg Landsman (OH-01) in submitting an official public comment letter to US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Scott Turner in strong opposition to HUD’s proposed rule to eliminate the “disparate impact” standard under the Fair Housing Act, arguing that this change would “significantly weaken the federal government’s role in preventing and remedying housing discrimination.”
Established by the Obama Administration in 2013, the disparate impact standard allows HUD to investigate and enforce against housing and lending policies that have discriminatory effects in practice.
The members write: “Ohio communities—like many communities across the country—continue to face significant housing challenges, including rising housing costs and documented disparities in mortgage access and valuation outcomes that can undermine fair access to homeownership and wealth-building. At a moment when housing affordability and availability are worsening nationwide, weakening fair housing enforcement would exacerbate—rather than address—these disparities.”
The full text of the public comment letter is below:
Re: HUD’s Implementation of the Fair Housing Act’s Disparate Impact Standard Proposed Rule – 24 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. FR-6540-P-01]
Dear Secretary Turner:
We write to express our strong opposition to the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s proposed rule entitled “HUD’s Implementation of the Fair Housing Act’s Disparate Impact Standard.” This proposal would dismantle HUD’s long-standing regulatory framework for enforcing the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and significantly weaken the federal government’s role in preventing and remedying housing discrimination.[1]
For more than a decade, HUD’s disparate impact standard—formalized in the Department’s 2013 final rule—has provided clear, consistent guidance for identifying and addressing discriminatory housing and lending practices.[2] This standard is essential to enforcing the FHA’s core purpose: ensuring that policies which appear neutral on their face do not, in practice, impose unjustified and disproportionate harms on protected classes. The framework also plays a critical role in discouraging the use of proxies that function as stand-ins for unlawful discrimination, such as policies that disproportionately exclude communities of color, people with disabilities, or families with children without a legitimate, nondiscriminatory justification.[3] The proposed rule would abandon this well-established enforcement framework and instead defer interpretation of disparate impact claims entirely to the courts. While judicial enforcement of the FHA is vital, Congress charged HUD with administering and enforcing the Act precisely because uniform, expert oversight is necessary to ensure consistent civil rights protections nationwide.[4][5] Eliminating HUD’s regulatory test would invite fragmentation across jurisdictions, increase uncertainty for housing providers and consumers, as well as weaken protections for families navigating an already strained and highly competitive housing market.
We are particularly concerned about the implications of this proposal. Disparate impact claims are frequently brought by renters, first-time homebuyers, people with disabilities, families with children, and communities of color—groups that often lack the resources to pursue prolonged federal litigation. HUD’s administrative enforcement authority has long provided an accessible, effective mechanism for addressing discriminatory practices without requiring costly and time-consuming lawsuits.[6] By diminishing HUD’s role, the proposed rule risks shifting the burden of enforcement onto those least able to bear it, effectively narrowing the Fair Housing Act’s protections in practice.
Ohio communities—like many communities across the country—continue to face significant housing challenges, including rising housing costs and documented disparities in mortgage access and valuation outcomes that can undermine fair access to homeownership and wealth-building.[7] At a moment when housing affordability and availability are worsening nationwide, weakening fair housing enforcement would exacerbate—rather than address—these disparities. The Fair Housing Act was enacted to confront both overt discrimination and structural barriers to opportunity, and HUD’s disparate impact standard remains one of the most effective tools to fulfill that mandate. The Supreme Court has explicitly recognized that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act, affirming that liability for discriminatory effects is consistent with both the statute’s text and congressional intent.[8] Congressional research similarly explains that HUD’s disparate impact framework formalized a long-held interpretation of the Fair Housing Act and was designed to promote nationwide consistency while requiring rigorous standards of causality and justification—not the elimination of enforcement standards altogether.[9]
For these reasons, we urge the Department to withdraw this proposed rule and retain a strong, clear, and enforceable disparate impact framework. Preserving HUD’s central role in administering and enforcing the Fair Housing Act is essential to advancing equal opportunity, strengthening communities, and upholding our nation’s civil rights laws.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important matter.
[[SIGNATURES]]
# # #