Fair Housing Enforcement Alive and Well Under Trump

The narrative that the Trump administration has stepped back from civil rights enforcement does not hold up when you look at what the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Housing and Civil Enforcement Section has actually been doing – though the focus may have shifted. 

Since January 2025, the administration has filed multiple Fair Housing Act lawsuits and already secured a settlement, targeting a range of defendants from landlords to local governments. The cases vary in their legal theories, but some clear patterns emerge.

Sexual Harassment in Housing: The Most Active Front

The most consistent thread running through Trump-era FHA enforcement is sexual harassment by landlords and property managers. The DOJ has brought several cases alleging that male housing providers subjected female tenants to severe and pervasive harassment, including: 

• Unwanted physical contact and sexual propositions

• Conditioning housing benefits, including rent reductions, electricity access, and laundry access, on sex

• Retaliating against tenants who refused advances or asserted their rights, through eviction filings or denial of repairs

• Entering tenants' homes without permission or notice

These are not edge cases. One defendant had already been convicted of federal sex trafficking charges and sentenced to twenty years in prison before the civil FHA lawsuit was filed. The conduct alleged in that case spanned more than two decades and involved multiple victims. 

The administration has been vocal about this work. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon's name appears on multiple press releases framing it as a priority, and the DOJ's Sexual Harassment in Housing Initiative is explicitly continuing under this administration, having now filed over fifty lawsuits and recovered more than nineteen million dollars for victims since its 2017 launch.

Vicarious Liability: The Detail Worth Noting

In several of these cases, the DOJ did not stop at the individual who committed the harassment. It also sued the property-owning entity, pursuing vicarious liability theories on the grounds that the harasser was acting as the owner's agent within the scope of that agency relationship. 

That theory should resonate with mortgage industry readers. The same logic alleging liability of a property owner for its manager's conduct could fairly easily be extended to other principal-agent contexts. For lenders and servicers who rely on third-party vendors, brokers, or service providers, the question of who is acting as your agent, and what they are doing in that role, raises compliance questions worth taking seriously.

Other Protected Classes Are Also in Play

Sexual harassment has generated the most activity, but it is not the only area. The DOJ has also filed cases involving: 

• Disability discrimination: Actions targeting landlords who refused reasonable accommodations for assistance animals, and a municipality that blocked a sober living home for persons in addiction recovery from operating in a residential zone

• Familial status: A lawsuit against a landlord who refused to rent to a single mother because she had a child, reportedly keeping children out of her complex for nearly twenty years

The disability cases are worth watching. One action targets a local government's zoning process directly, arguing that the town's refusal to grant reasonable accommodations to allow a sober living home effectively excluded persons with disabilities from the community. For mortgage lenders, that kind of case is a reminder that the FHA's disability provisions extend well beyond individual tenant requests, and that collateral properties tied to group homes or recovery residences may present fair lending considerations worth understanding.

What This Means for Mortgage Companies 

Several of these cases started as HUD complaints before landing in federal court. That referral pipeline is active, which means fair housing complaints filed today can become DOJ lawsuits tomorrow. The protected classes at the center of these cases, disability, familial status, and sex, are the same ones that drive fair lending scrutiny of underwriting, pricing, and servicing practices, and HUD's complaint process is just as available to a borrower as it is to a tenant. For mortgage companies, that is a reason to treat any fair housing complaint, internal or external, with the same seriousness regardless of how the broader enforcement climate is being characterized. 

Mortgage companies that want to stay ahead of this should be auditing their policies for consistency, ensuring staff are trained on the full range of fair housing obligations, documenting the basis for underwriting and servicing decisions, and treating complaints as early warning systems rather than administrative burdens.

Questions about fair housing compliance or FHA exposure? Contact troy@garrishorn.com.