Attorney General Bonta Announces Lawsuit to Block Trump Administration’s Unlawful Rollback of Fair Housing Protections

HUD guidance eviscerates enforcement of fair housing laws 

OAKLAND — Co-leading a coalition of 16 attorneys general, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) over guidance it issued that significantly weakens fair housing protections and makes it harder to hold landlords accountable for discrimination. The Fair Housing Act (FHA), a federal law, prohibits discrimination based on seven protected traits: (1) race, (2) color, (3) national origin, (4) religion, (5) sex, (6) familial status, (7) disability. Critically, the FHA establishes a floor — not a ceiling — for protection against housing discrimination, meaning that states can expand the scope of protections beyond what the FHA mandates. Many states have chosen to do so. For example, California also provides fair housing protections for traits such as gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry, source of income, and veteran or military status. HUD generally refers housing discrimination complaints to state and local agencies for potential action. However, HUD issued guidance in September 2025 threatening to decertify those agencies — thereby cutting off complaint referrals and funding — if they consider protections other than those required by the FHA, while simultaneously imposing new unlawful funding conditions. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the lawsuit by the attorneys general alleges that the guidance violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution and threatens to dismantle a crucial mechanism for combating housing discrimination. They ask the court to halt the Trump Administration’s implementation of the guidance.

“All levels of government — local, state, and federal — should be laser focused not only on building more housing, but also ensuring that everyone can access a home free from discrimination. Unfortunately, the Trump Administration thinks otherwise. HUD, without legal authority, is effectively undermining state laws that offer stronger protections than federal law,” said Attorney General Bonta. “My fellow attorneys general and I are united in our answer: not on our watch. HUD’s guidance is unlawful and would only roll back the progress we’ve made to keep our families safe from discrimination that limits where they can live.”

Congress enacted the FHA in 1968 to address the pervasive nationwide problem of housing discrimination and tasked HUD with enforcing this landmark civil rights law. Recognizing the scope of the challenge, Congress envisioned a strong partnership between HUD and state and local agencies. This partnership has operated for decades through the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP). Through the FHAP, HUD funds state and local agencies whose fair housing laws are substantially equivalent to — that is, provide at least the same protections as — the FHA, and refers housing discrimination complaints to them. State and local agencies use FHAP funds to process housing discrimination complaints, train staff, and engage in community outreach and education.

In addition to requiring state and local agencies to weaken their fair housing laws, the HUD guidance at issue establishes a number of conditions that they must meet to qualify for FHAP funding, including:

• Disparate impact condition. HUD’s guidance prohibits state and local agencies from pursuing claims premised on disparate impact liability, even where state law expressly recognizes disparate impact as a cognizable theory of liability. Disparate impact liability prohibits discrimination based on the effects of a housing policy, even if the intent of the policy was not to discriminate.
• Anti-abortion condition. HUD’s guidance imposes an abortion-related funding condition on state and local agencies. The guidance, however, fails to explain what it means to “facilitate” or “promote” abortion, how FHAP agencies might do so, or why this condition unrelated to the administration of fair housing law is being imposed upon FHAP funding recipients.
• Immigration condition. HUD’s guidance prohibits FHAP funding from being used to “subsidize” or “promote” illegal immigration. However, the guidance does not explain what those terms mean.
• Gender ideology condition. HUD’s guidance prohibits state and local agencies from using funds to promote “gender ideology.” However, the definition of “gender ideology” is so imprecise that states and FHAP agencies would be required to guess what it means.

The attorneys general note that these conditions come after HUD gutted its own fair housing enforcement capabilities by slashing its headcount and significantly reducing the number of housing discrimination cases it charges. The agency also fired employee whistleblowers after they publicly sounded the alarm about its decimation of fair housing enforcement. 

In California, the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) collaborates with HUD under the FHAP. CRD does critical work to protect Californians from discrimination in housing. For example, in December 2025, CRD announced reforms at more than two dozen apartment complexes across California following an undercover fair housing test that identified evidence of potential discrimination against applicants who have previously been involved with the criminal justice system. HUD’s guidance prohibits CRD and other state and local agencies from pursuing these claims if they want to continue receiving FHAP funding.

Attorney General Bonta and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul are co-leading today’s lawsuit. Joining them are the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.