Minister: Banning Cities From Prioritizing Refugees Is Discriminatory

A federal court in New Jersey has reaffirmed that policies blocking immigrants from renting homes can violate federal civil rights law, placing fresh scrutiny on efforts to bar cities from prioritizing refugees in housing programs. In a decision issued on August 19, 2025, the court allowed a lawsuit to proceed against property companies accused of refusing to rent to immigrants, including DACA recipients, under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. § 1981). The ruling underscores a growing legal view that denying housing to anyone based on citizenship or immigration status can be unlawful discrimination, even as advocates warn that new policy proposals could restrict access for non-citizens.

The case reflects a wider fight over how far cities can go to support newcomers amid tight rental markets and rising hostility toward immigrants. Civil rights groups argue that bans on local prioritization programs for refugees are discriminatory because they often act as a proxy for national origin bias. Thomas A. Saenz, President and General Counsel of MALDEF, called the New Jersey decision a reminder that federal protections still apply, saying, “Denying housing to anyone on the basis of their citizenship or immigration status is unlawful discrimination – in every part of the country.” The court also noted how blanket rental refusals can shut immigrants out of stable homes and jobs, making it harder for families to build a life.

Legal landscape and recent rulings

The recent ruling sits alongside a separate federal court action that affects anti-discrimination work nationwide. On July 29, 2025, a judge issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) from ending grants that fund fair housing enforcement. Those grants support investigations, testing, and legal help for tenants who face bias, including immigrants and refugees. Advocacy groups say this pause helps keep key tools in place at a time when reports of housing discrimination remain high.

At the federal level, protections come from two main sources:

• Fair Housing Act
  • Bans discrimination because of national origin and religion.
  • Covers many refugees but does not explicitly name “refugee” or “immigration status.”
• Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. § 1981)
  • Prohibits discrimination in making and enforcing contracts, including leases.
  • The New Jersey court interpreted it to prohibit discrimination on the basis of alienage or lack of citizenship.

Together, these laws give immigrants and refugees several paths to seek justice when landlords impose blanket rules that exclude them.

How to file complaints and get help

If you believe you have been discriminated against in renting or buying a home, you can:

1. File a complaint with HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. HUD provides guidance and intake options on its official site at HUD Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.
2. Call 1-800-669-9777 to start a complaint.

Legal aid groups offering direct help include:
– MALDEF: (213) 629-2512
– Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights: (312) 202-3657
– Vermont Legal Aid: (802) 863-5620

State-level action: Vermont’s H.169

State lawmakers are also moving. Vermont’s 2025 bill H.169 would:

• Add citizenship and immigration status as protected classes in state housing law.
• Prohibit landlords from asking about immigration status.
• Bar requirements for a Social Security number.
• Require acceptance of any government-issued ID for rental applications.

Vermont advocates argue these steps are needed because federal “national origin” protections can miss status-based barriers that keep immigrant families in unstable or unsafe housing. Supporters say H.169 would create clear, simple rules for landlords and tenants and reduce the fear that keeps many families from applying for formal leases.

National proposals and potential risks

National advocacy groups warn the policy environment could worsen if new federal measures advance. The National Fair Housing Alliance and allied organizations report that some circulating proposals would:

• Ban non-citizens from federally assisted housing,
• Split mixed-status families,
• Limit the Department of Justice’s ability to bring cases on behalf of immigrants and refugees.

As of late August 2025, these proposals have not taken effect, but groups are preparing legal challenges if they move forward. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, a federal ban’s practical impact could reach far beyond public housing, affecting voucher programs and creating confusion for local agencies serving diverse communities.

Impact on cities, landlords, and families

For cities:
– Prioritizing refugees in housing is often a practical response to mismatched federal timelines and local rental markets.
– If rules block such prioritization, cities could face litigation from both sides: challenges by opponents of prioritization and claims that bans have discriminatory effects on national origin groups.
– Current law does not impose a federal ban on city-level prioritization for refugees, but the debate is active and could trigger legal tests.

For landlords and property managers:
– The New Jersey decision raises legal risk for company-wide policies that refuse applications from non-U.S. citizens or tenants without a Social Security number.
– Lawsuits increasingly target discrimination tied to immigration status, source of income, and familial status.
– Industry concerns about administrative burdens and ID verification are being met by clearer standards from courts and legislators—examples include Vermont’s H.169, which would require acceptance of any government-issued ID and ban status questions outright.

For families:
– Bans on prioritizing refugees would remove a key tool cities use to stabilize newcomers quickly.
– Without targeted support, more immigrant and refugee families may end up in crowded apartments, motels, or employer-provided housing that can mask labor abuse.
– Status-based bans can amount to national origin discrimination in practice, perpetuating a cycle where unstable housing leads to job instability, rental gaps, and further exclusion by landlords.

The New Jersey court recognized the practical link between housing and employment stability, noting how blanket denials can block both.

Practical steps and recommendations

People facing discrimination have several concrete options:

• File a complaint with HUD FHEO at the link above or call 1-800-669-9777.
• Seek help from MALDEF at (213) 629-2512 for national civil rights guidance.
• Contact regional legal aid groups:
  • Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights: (312) 202-3657
  • Vermont Legal Aid: (802) 863-5620

Landlords and cities should consider the following actions:

1. Review screening policies for bright-line rules tied to citizenship, immigration status, or Social Security numbers.
2. Document goals and neutral criteria behind any refugee-focused programs to show alignment with fair housing law.
3. Adopt clear ID-acceptance policies (e.g., accept any government-issued ID) to reduce confusion and legal risk.

Focus on DACA recipients and screening practices

The New Jersey case highlights how rulings affect DACA recipients, who are often targeted by rental screening rules tied to Social Security numbers or proof of citizenship. When property companies impose bright-line limits that exclude DACA holders, they risk violating the Civil Rights Act.

Key takeaways for screening practices:
– Policies must assess tenants individually and avoid blanket exclusions based on status.
– Fair housing principles emphasize actual rental risk, not a person’s passport or immigration status.
– Practices that look neutral—such as strict documentation checklists, refusal to accept foreign IDs, or demands for Social Security numbers when alternatives exist—can have discriminatory effects and are under increased scrutiny.

Vermont’s H.169 proposes a straightforward solution: don’t ask about status, don’t require a Social Security number, and accept any government-issued ID. Supporters argue this reduces conflicts at the leasing desk and focuses decisions on objective rental criteria.

What to watch next

The policy horizon remains uncertain. Some national proposals tied to broader conservative agendas, including ideas associated with “Project 2025,” would bar non-citizens from federally assisted housing and curb enforcement tools used by the Department of Justice. None of these changes are in effect as of August 27, 2025, but housing agencies and advocates are preparing court challenges if rules emerge.

For now, most civil rights lawyers point to the combined force of the Fair Housing Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 as a strong shield against status-based discrimination. As litigation moves forward, practical guidance is clear:

• Landlords: review and revise screening policies that rely on status-based exclusions.
• Cities: document neutral goals and criteria for refugee-prioritization programs.
• Families: seek legal help promptly, since deadlines apply to administrative complaints and lawsuits.

The New Jersey decision, the HUD grant injunction, and Vermont’s pending bill all point in the same direction: a legal climate increasingly treats status-based rental barriers as discrimination, with courts ready to hear cases and advocates ready to act.