Need Help? (410) 625-9409

Discriminatory landlord practice reinforces racial segregation and prevents access to affordable housing, amicus brief argues

September 27, 2024

Some corporate landlords are flouting a Maryland law intended to expand access to safe, affordable housing, according to a recent Public Justice Center amicus brief. Written by PJC attorney Albert Turner, the brief urges the Supreme Court of Maryland to hear a case concerning a corporate landlord’s discrimination against voucher-holding tenants in violation of the HOME Act and calls on the Court to clarify that this practice is unlawful. The HOME Act prohibits landlords from refusing to rent to a tenant based on how they pay their rent, such as with a housing voucher. The amicus brief in Hare v. David S. Brown Enterprises, Ltd focuses on landlords’ discriminatory practice of requiring that tenants with vouchers have income that is 2.5 or 3 times the full market rent instead of assessing whether the tenant can pay their share of the rent, which is usually 30% of their income.

Discriminatory income criteria frequently lead to landlords refusing to rent to voucher-holding families, and the amicus brief shares stories and data to illustrate the harm such criteria cause. This widespread practice reinforces racial segregation by using discrimination against voucher-holding families as a proxy for discrimination based on identities like race, gender, and disability. The practice often prevents voucher-holding families from moving to higher opportunity neighborhoods that have schools with higher test scores, lower poverty rates, more employment opportunities, and better transportation because landlords in those neighborhoods refuse vouchers. This pushes tenants into housing that is unsafe or far from family, and even causes homelessness when vouchers expire before tenants can find a landlord that will accept the voucher. Ultimately, landlords’ income criteria defeat the purpose of the HOME Act to protect families from discrimination and increase access to affordable housing. We hope that the Supreme Court of Maryland will agree to hear the case and rule that landlords must not skirt the protections of the HOME Act.

Thanks to the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, National Housing Law Project, Equal Rights Center, National Fair Housing Alliance, Homeless Persons Representation Project, Fair Housing Justice Center, and Disability Rights Maryland for signing onto the brief and sharing their support and expertise.