THE ISSUE BEHIND THIS RULING IS NOT LIMITED TO NEW YORK.
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR NEW YORK HOUSING PROVIDERS
For New York housing providers, the ruling creates a serious compliance issue, but it should not be treated as permission to ignore source-of-income protections. After the Appellate Division ruling, the case moved to the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court. That means the Appellate Division decision may not be the final word. New York law also provides for a stay of enforcement in certain appeals involving the state or a state officer or agency.
In practical terms, housing providers should not assume they can now refuse Section 8 applicants based on this ruling alone. The New York Attorney General continues to describe lawful source-of- income discrimination as illegal, identify Section 8 vouchers as protected, and accept source-of- income discrimination complaints. The safer takeaway is this: New York housing providers should continue treating source-of- income compliance as active and should not make voucher-related policy changes without legal guidance.
WHY OTHER STATES SHOULD PAY ATTENTION
The issue behind this ruling is not limited to New York. Many states and local governments have source-of-income protections, and some specifically prohibit discrimination against Housing Choice Voucher holders. In some of those jurisdictions, there have been similar challenges based on the same arguments as those made in this case. The ruling in this New York case does not mean that other jurisdictions’ source of income laws are automatically unconstitutional. Different states may
have different statutes, procedures, ordinances, or constitutional standards. But the New York ruling will certainly become part of the conversation in places where voucher acceptance is mandatory. The key question for other states is this: Does the law require voucher acceptance in a way that effectively requires housing providers to participate in the Housing Choice Voucher program and accept inspections, records access, and contract terms that may raise constitutional concerns?
PAGE 11
Powered by FlippingBook