THE CONCERN WAS NOT THE VOUCHER PAYMENT ITSELF BUT THE PROGRAM OBLIGATIONS ATTACHED TO IT.
THE BACKGROUND: THIS WAS ABOUT MORE THAN RENT PAYMENT
New York’s Human Rights Law protects against discrimination on the basis of lawful source of income in housing, including wages, public assistance, Social Security, child support, alimony, foster care subsidies, and housing assistance such as Section 8 vouchers. This means that housing providers could not simply say “no Section 8,” refuse voucher applicants, delay applications because of a voucher, or treat voucher holders differently because of how rent would be paid. The case began after two prospective tenants alleged that Ithaca landlords refused to rent to them because they used Section 8 voucher
assistance. The New York Attorney General brought an enforcement action, arguing that the landlords violated New York’s source-of-income discrimination law. The landlords challenged the law, arguing that mandatory voucher acceptance effectively forced them into the federal Housing Choice Voucher program, which involves mandatory inspections, rent reasonableness reviews, access to records, and a Housing Assistance Payments contract. The landlords were asking the court to view Section 8 as more than just another way rent is paid, but rather on what accepting a voucher requires after approval. to accept those obligations as part of source-of- income compliance raised Fourth Amendment concerns. The ruling was narrow. It did not strike down the Section 8 program altogether or eliminate all source-of-income protections. It focused specifically on mandatory Section 8 acceptance and the government access and contract requirements that come with the Housing Choice Voucher program.
WHAT THE COURT RULED
The court recognized New York’s housing affordability concerns and the role Section 8 plays in expanding access to housing. However, it held that New York’s source-of-income law was unconstitutional to the extent that it required landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers. The concern was not the voucher payment itself but the program obligations attached to it, including inspections, access to records, and the HAP contract. In the court’s view, requiring landlords
PAGE 10
Powered by FlippingBook