Source of Income Discrimination: "No Section 8" Is Illegal in 24 States

The Law That Doesn't Exist (Except Where It Does)

Jennifer Martinez had a Section 8 voucher worth $1,900/month. She had a job making $3,200/month. Perfect credit - 720 score. References from two previous landlords, both glowing. No evictions, no criminal record, mother of two kids.

She applied for apartments for three months. Sent 23 applications. Got rejected 22 times.

The reasons varied. "Credit requirements." "Income verification issues." "Already rented." "Not a good fit." But Jennifer noticed a pattern: applications were fine until she mentioned her voucher. Then suddenly, problems.

One landlord was honest. "Look, I just don't take Section 8. Too much paperwork, inspections, dealing with the housing authority. I'm sure you're great, but it's my policy."

What that landlord didn't know: Jennifer lives in California. In 2020, California made source of income discrimination illegal. That "policy" of his? $18,000 violation.

Jennifer filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department. Screenshot of the landlord's text saying "I don't take Section 8" was all the evidence she needed. Settlement: $18,000 in damages plus landlord had to take fair housing training and change his screening policies.

Here's The Problem

Source of income is NOT protected under federal Fair Housing Act. At the federal level, landlords can legally refuse Section 8 vouchers. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) doesn't enforce source of income discrimination because it's not in the federal law.

But 24 states plus DC have enacted their own laws prohibiting it. Another 100+ cities have local ordinances. So whether you're protected depends entirely on where you live.

If you're in California, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, Washington - you're protected. Landlords can't refuse your voucher.

If you're in Florida, Texas, Georgia, Arizona, Tennessee - you're not protected. Landlords can legally say "No Section 8" and there's nothing you can do under fair housing law.

This geographic lottery is absurd. Whether you have housing rights shouldn't depend on which state you happen to live in. But that's where we are.

The Federal Fair Housing Act's Biggest Gap

Fair Housing Act protects seven classes: race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, familial status.

Source of income? Not on the list.

This matters because an estimated 2.3 million households use Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8). They face rejection rates of 25-40% even when their voucher plus wages meet landlord's income requirements and they have good credit and rental history.

Why do landlords refuse vouchers? Some reasons they give:

• "Too much paperwork and inspections" (housing authority inspects property, requires certain standards)
• "Delayed payments" (housing authority pays their portion directly, but on their schedule)
• "Difficult tenants" (discriminatory stereotype - voucher holders are no more likely to be problem tenants than anyone else)
• "My business model doesn't work with vouchers" (translation: I don't want to deal with it)

Some of these are legitimate business concerns. Most are excuses masking bias. Studies show voucher discrimination correlates with racial discrimination - areas that discriminate against voucher holders also discriminate against Black and Hispanic renters, because voucher holders are disproportionately people of color.

Why Federal Protection Matters

Advocates have pushed for years to add source of income to Fair Housing Act. Bills have been introduced in Congress. None have passed.

If federal law protected source of income:

• HUD would enforce it nationwide (more resources than state/local agencies)
• All 50 states would have consistent protection
• Voucher holders could file HUD complaints (easier than navigating state systems)
• Damages and penalties would be higher (federal Fair Housing Act penalties reach $115,000+ vs. $5,000-25,000 in many states)
• National awareness would increase, reducing discrimination

Until then, we have this state-by-state patchwork.

The 24 States (+DC) Where You're Protected

Notice the dates. Twelve of these states added protection since 2018. That's enormous momentum.

Massachusetts and Wisconsin have protected source of income for decades. Connecticut since 1992. These states have strong case law and established enforcement.

California's 2020 law was huge - California has 12% of US population. Illinois, Maryland, Virginia, Colorado all adding protection in 2020 signaled a wave.

Local Protections in Otherwise Unprotected States

Over 100 cities and counties have local source of income ordinances even though their states don't protect it:

• Chicago, IL (before state law)
• Kansas City, MO (Missouri doesn't protect)
• Philadelphia, PA (Pennsylvania doesn't protect)
• Many cities in Texas, despite state not protecting
• Cities throughout North Carolina, Georgia, Florida

You MUST check both your state AND local laws. Your city might protect you even if your state doesn't.

Calculate Your Potential Damages

Estimate compensation for source of income discrimination in protected jurisdictions.

Frequently Asked Questions