Coalition of AGs File Complaint Challenging HUD Guidance

On March 16, a coalition of attorneys general from 15 states and the District of Columbia filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California challenging a set of September 2025 guidance documents issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) affecting the Fair Housing Assistance Program (“FHAP”). The complaint alleges that the guidance unlawfully conditions FHAP funding on state and local agencies limiting enforcement of fair housing protections that extend beyond those recognized under the federal Fair Housing Act.

According to the complaint, the guidance threatens to revoke “substantial equivalency” certifications, a status that enables state and local agencies to participate in HUD’s federally funded complaint-referral system, for agencies that enforce state laws protecting classes beyond those enumerated in the FHA, such as sexual orientation, gender identity, source of income, and criminal records. The complaint further alleges that the guidance prohibits agencies from pursuing claims based on disparate impact liability, even where state law expressly recognizes it as a cognizable theory of liability.

The lawsuit further challenges conditions restricting the use of FHAP funds in connection with “gender ideology,” “elective abortions,” and “illegal immigration,” arguing that these requirements are unrelated to the administration of fair housing laws and insufficiently defined to be enforceable. The coalition seeks declaratory relief, vacatur under the Administrative Procedure Act, and a permanent injunction blocking implementation of the guidance. 

Putting It Into Practice: The lawsuit, co-led by the California and Illinois Attorneys General, can be viewed as part of a broader pushback against federal efforts to narrow enforcement frameworks administered through cooperative federal-state programs. For market participants, the key takeaway is that state and local fair housing regimes may continue to impose obligations beyond the federal baseline. Institutions operating nationally should continue monitoring both federal policy developments and evolving state enforcement positions, particularly where state agencies retain authority to pursue disparate impact or other expanded theories of liability.