April 21, 2026
Regulations Division,
Office of General Counsel,
Department of Housing and Urban Development,
451 7th Street SW, Room 10276,
Washington, DC 20410-0500
Sent electronically via Regulations.gov.
RE: Docket No. FR-6524-P-01: Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status
Dear colleagues,
The Poverty & Race Research Action Council (PRRAC) is a national civil rights organization bridging law, policy, social science, and grassroots organizing to advance racial and economic justice. PRRAC brings deep expertise on housing justice and educational equity to grassroots movement organizations and coalitions, through legal analysis, policy design, and research translation. Our work is grounded in empirical research, legal analysis, and demonstrated solutions to ensure that federal housing programs advance equity, inclusion, and opportunity. From this perspective, we strongly oppose HUD’s proposed rule “Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status (FR-6524)” as it presents serious risks to the civil rights obligations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
The proposed changes violate the Fair Housing Act (FHA), implicate the constitutional right to familial association, are contrary to congressional intent, do not reflect a proper weighing of costs and benefits, and would have unintended consequences for vulnerable citizens. Therefore, we urge HUD to maintain the status quo and rescind the proposed rule. The following summarizes our concerns:
1) The proposed rule has a harsh and grossly disproportionate disparate impact on Latine families and children, many of whom are citizens or legal residents. This discriminatory effect violates §§ 804(a) and 808(e)(5) of the FHA.
2) The proposed rule is contrary to the congressional intent to keep families together expressed in the 1987 Housing Act, which amended Section 214.
3) HUD has not properly considered all of the fiscal costs of the proposed rule.
4) HUD has not considered the privacy and security concerns of the proposed rule.
I. Disparate Impact
This proposed rule, if implemented, would have a devastating impact on mixed-status households, a term in this case used to describe families in which U.S. citizens and eligible permanent residents live alongside family members of immigration statuses that do not qualify for federal assistance. It is important to note that in the housing context, ineligibility for federal assistance is not limited to undocumented individuals, but includes many documented immigration statuses (such as Temporary Protected Status (TPS), Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), and certain time-determinate exclusions like immigration parolees).1 Further, immigration statuses are not static, many ineligible members of otherwise eligible families are awaiting the ability to or in the process of adjusting their status to an eligible one, while others’ legal statuses are caught in limbo with no pathway to citizenship. In reality, families often do not fit cleanly into the boxes of “eligible” and “ineligible.” This is the reality for more than 20,000 families currently receiving assistance, including over 52,600 eligible U.S. Citizens who are legally entitled to equal access to benefits. The existence of mixed-status households is not a rare or new occurrence. It was considered when Congress passed the statute at issue and proration of benefits has long been the well reasoned and balanced solution.2 In prior comments (July 2019), PRRAC argued that a substantially similar proposed rule violates the Fair Housing Act by disproportionately affecting Latine families and undermines constitutional rights to familial association. We adopt and incorporate the arguments made therein.3
This rule will predictably violate the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), because it will have a disparate impact on eligible Latine families and there is not legally sufficient justification. The FHA makes it unlawful to “refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person” on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.”4 In Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, the Supreme Court construed this provision to encompass not only intentional discrimination under a disparate treatment theory of liability, but also disparate impact discrimination claims. 576 U.S. at 545–46. Despite the Administration’s recent political attempts to undermine the discriminatory effects framework, it remains binding law with legislative, regulatory, and judicial backing.5
The proposed rule’s disparate impact on Latine households and families with children is not only measurable, but inevitable. A staggering 86 percent of people in mixed-status homes are Latine. Contrary to the rule’s misleading framing, these households are not primarily composed…
1 Maggie McCarty and Abigail F. Kolker, Cong. Rsch. Serv., R46462, Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Housing Programs (Jan. 23, 2023) https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R46462/R46462.11.pdf
2 The proposed rule is in direct contradiction with congressional intention to preserve families.When Congress passed the 1987 Housing Act, which amended Section 214, it included a provision for continued assistance for mixed-status families in order to “support the sanctity of the family” and “avoid division of [the] family.” See, Restriction on Use of Assisted Housing by Aliens, 53 Fed. Reg. 41052 (proposed Oct. 19, 1988) (citing 133 Cong. Rec. S18615 (daily ed. Dec. 21, 1987) (statement of Sen. William Armstrong) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
3 Poverty & Race Research Action Council, Letter to Office of General Counsel, Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev. (July 9, 2019), https://www.prrac.org/pdf/prrac-mixed-status-comments-letter-07-09-19.pdf.
4 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).
5 42 U.S.C. § 3604; “Reinstatement of HUD’s Discriminatory Effects Standard” on March 31, 2023 (“the 2023 rule”) at 88 FR 19450; Tex. Dep’t of Hous. and Comm. Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 2507, 2517-18 (2015).
