Supreme Court of Maryland to Hear Source-of-Income Discrimination Case Addressing Landlords’ Use a Minimum Income Requirement in Violation of the HOME Act.

Brown, Goldstein & Levy, along with the Ray Legal Group, have petitioned the  Supreme Court of Maryland to bypass the Appellate Court to hear a case involving Maryland’s HOME Act. In applying for an apartment owned by David S. Brown Enterprises, the tenant’s application for an apartment was denied because she did not satisfy a policy requiring applicants demonstrate an income equivalent to 2.5 times the full monthly market rent even though she would only be responsible for a small proportion of it after her voucher was applied. This policy would exclude the majority of voucher holders in the State.

In 2020, the State of Maryland passed a law forbidding landlords from discriminating against potential tenants based on their source of income. Although the HOME Act requires landlords to accept housing vouchers, landlords are using minimum income criteria divorced from voucher holders’ share of the rent in a way that harms tenants with rental subsidies. These policies are effectively a loophole that defeats the remedial intent of the HOME Act, which bans housing discrimination based on source of income in order to decrease segregation and provide more opportunities for economic mobility.

The Circuit Court of Baltimore County granted summary judgment to the landlord, reasoning that the policy did not violate the HOME Act because it was applied in a neutral way. The Supreme Court of Maryland will review the Circuit Court of Baltimore County’s decision. The Attorney General of Maryland submitted an amicus brief in support of the bypass petition. 

In addition to the amicus brief filed by the Attorney General, eight local and national organizations collectively joined as amici in the case, including The Public Justice Center, 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.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments during the May session.

Read the February 13. 2025 Brownstein & Levy article.

Elderly- or Disabled-Headed Households are Now the Most Common Housing Choice Voucher Program Households

A new HUD Office of Policy Development and Research study found that as of 2020, families with children no longer represented the most common type of tenant-based rental assistance - Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) - households. Elderly- or disabled-headed households are now the most common HCV household structure.

HUD began providing tenant-based rental assistance following the passage of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. For the first time, low-income households were able to use their assistance to seek rental housing in the private market. By the 1970s, observers realized that the spatial concentration of poverty was negatively impacting those the program sought to help. The current HCV program tries to have these assisted households live in higher-opportunity neighborhoods rather than areas of concentrated poverty, where many public housing developments were and still are located.

A HUD report comparing nationwide trends in 2010 to those in the top 50 MSAs in 2000 found that although the HCV program had a small share of affordable rental housing, the share of households living in high-poverty areas was increasing. It also found that the share of HCV households living in HCV-dense census tracts had increased during 2000-2010. Both reports found that participant choice alone was not enough to achieve spatial poverty de-concentration.

The just-released third HCV location report covering 2010 and 2020 found that:

(1) The number of HCV households with an elderly or disabled head of household exceeded the number of HCV households with children. During 2010-2020, the number of elderly heads of households increased by nearly 10% and the number of disabled heads of households decreased slightly. Non-Hispanic Black heads of households continue to represent the largest - and growing - racial/ethnic group of HCV households.

(2) The share of HCV households living in neighborhoods with a high density of voucher holders increased 2010-2020; and 

(3) A large share of HCV households still live in high-poverty neighborhoods. Nationwide, 44% of tenant-based voucher (TBV) households still lived in high-poverty census tracts in 2020, including 7% living in areas of extreme poverty

(4) There are significant racial and ethnic disparities among voucher households regarding neighborhood poverty rates: Black (52.3%) and Hispanic (47.8%) HCV households were more likely to live in neighborhoods with higher concentrations of poverty compared to their white peers (30.7%). Black and Hispanic HCV households were also twice as likely to live in neighborhoods with higher concentrations of other voucher holders, where more than 10% of units were occupied by voucher holders, compared to white HCV households.

Read the October 29, 2024 HUD Report.

Read the September 16, 2024 National Low Income Housing Coalition article.

Maryland Attorney General Urges State Supreme Court to Hear Case Protecting Fair Housing Rights Under the HOME Act

Attorney General Anthony G. Brown has filed an amicus brief urging the Maryland Supreme Court to hear Hare v. David S. Brown Enterprises, Ltd., to protect fair housing rights under the HOME Act and prevent discrimination against low-income Marylanders using Housing Choice Vouchers. The brief urges the Court to grant a writ of certiorari to hear the case and protect the fair housing rights of Marylanders. The outcome of this Supreme Court decision could set a significant precedent for how income requirements are applied in housing practices across the State.

Maryland enacted the HOME Act in 2020, joining 22 states and over 40 municipalities in outlawing housing discrimination based on source of income. The legislation was designed to protect marginalized groups such as people of color, families with children, and individuals with disabilities.

This includes participants in the federal Housing Choice Voucher program, which subsidizes rents for nearly 50,000 Maryland low-income families. Eligible families receiving assistance pay 30% of their income toward rent and utilities, with the remaining rent paid by a separate contract with local government agencies.

The case of Hare v. David S. Brown Enterprises, Ltd. involves an appeal from Katrina Hare, an elderly, disabled, African-American woman who receives Supplemental Security Income and uses a Housing Choice Voucher to afford housing. Hare was denied housing by David S. Brown, Ltd. because she did not meet its minimum income requirement of $47,700 a year, even though her Housing Choice Voucher would have covered all but $126 of rent. The Baltimore County Circuit Court ruled that this denial was not discrimination and granted summary judgment in favor of David S. Brown Enterprises, Ltd. Hare appealed that decision to the Maryland Appellate Court and has requested that the State's Supreme Court hear the case (she petitioned for a writ of certiorari) before the Appellate Court issues its opinion.

The Attorney General’s brief supports Hare’s petition to the Maryland Supreme Court, and requests the Court to hear the case and rule that David S. Brown Enterprise, Ltd. applied its minimum income requirements that illegally discriminates against prospective tenants who, like Hare, use Housing Choice Vouchers. The brief also details the legislative history of the HOME Act and emphasizes the intent of the General Assembly to protect Housing Choice Voucher participants from the type of housing discrimination in this case.

Read the September 9, 2024 The Moco Show article.

Read the September 6, 2024 Franklin County Free Press article.