- What We do
- Legal Advocacy
- Comment on rule barring mixed-status families from subsidized housing (Department of Housing and Urban Development)
Comment on rule barring mixed-status families from subsidized housing (Department of Housing and Urban Development)
Public Rights Project supported a coalition led by San Francisco and Los Angeles to oppose a federal rule that would displace families with mixed immigration statuses from subsidized housing. The public comment was filed on behalf of 20 local governments.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is proposing to rescind its long-standing policy allowing families to stay together in housing even when one member may be ineligible for benefits. If finalized, the rule would separate families, jeopardize residents’ health and wellbeing, and shift significant costs onto local governments.
The coalition comment identifies the ways local governments will bear the burden if this rule takes effect:
- Potential mass evictions or homelessness: Especially in high-cost localities, this rule threatens to harm the most vulnerable in our communities — children and seniors — with 75% of affected households including children. Families could be separated, causing major instability in communities.
- New costs: As thousands of people are displaced as a result of this rule, local governments will face increased demand for services such as eviction defense, emergency shelter, and temporary housing. New homelessness costs created by this rule for local governments could range from $20,000 to $50,000 per person, per year.
- Housing market disruption: Local governments rely on public-private partnerships — such as voucher programs, where housing authorities offer rental assistance and private landlords provide housing. Mass evictions would mean lost rent, turnover costs, and broader economic harm.
The impacts on individuals and communities are real and measurable — but the proposed rule is also illegal. It conflicts with federal laws promoting fair housing and homelessness prevention, offers no justification for departing from long-standing regulations, and fails to consider the effects on municipalities.
-
Legal case6/2/2026
Avila v. Blanche
Public Rights Project, alongside the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul and Kansas City Mayor…
-
Legal case5/6/2026
Louisiana v. FDA
Public Rights Project, along with 110 local governments and local government leaders, filed an amicus…
-
Legal case4/30/2026
State of California v. Trump (2026)
Public Rights Project filed an amicus brief in a case challenging President Trump’s March 2026…