Civil and Human Rights

Comments on HUD’s implementation of the Fair Housing Act’s Disparate Impact Standard

In Brief

Everyone is entitled to seek housing free from discrimination.
A new rule proposed by the Trump Administration would gut the Fair Housing Act’s disparate impact standard, making it harder for marginalized communities to prove discrimination in the housing market.
The proposed rule contravenes the very purpose of the Fair Housing Act by making it easier for companies to discriminate.

CAC submitted a public comment to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding the Trump Administration’s attempt to dismantle the disparate impact standard for the Fair Housing Act.

In our comment, we urged HUD to not move forward with the proposed rule but instead maintain the current rule and carry out HUD’s statutory role by vigorously enforcing the Fair Housing Act to remove discriminatory barriers to housing choice throughout the housing market. There is no good reason for revising the existing rule, which reflects long settled principles of disparate impact liability long affirmed by the courts. Adopting the proposed rule would contravene the purpose of the Fair Housing Act and would be a step towards perpetuating inequality.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
April 26, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.