On November 25, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
The letter mentions several documents issued by HUD in the past that are now rescinded and outlines the obligation of HUD, PHAs, and owners to provide decent, safe, and affordable housing. These rescinded documents include:
Mandatory criminal-history screening
HUD makes clear that PHAs and owners must screen applicants for criminal history. Screening is now framed as an essential safety obligation and not an optional practice.
Emphasis on property safety
Owners and PHAs have both the authority and responsibility to keep properties safe. This includes denying admission or taking lease-enforcement actions when applicants or tenants engage in serious illegal activities, such as:
Drug manufacturing (e.g., methamphetamine production)
Violent crimes
Other serious drug-related offenses
Individualized assessments for convictions
While screening is mandatory, automatic or blanket denials are not permitted.
Arrests alone are insufficient
HUD reiterates that arrest records without a resulting conviction should not be used as a basis for denial. Arrests do not reliably indicate criminal conduct and relying on them heightens the risk of discriminatory outcomes.
Policies must be narrowly tailored
Screening criteria should be clear, specific, and directly tied to legitimate safety concerns.
Review and update tenant selection policies
Update Tenant Selection Plans (TSPs) and Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policies (ACOPs) to reflect:
Mandatory screening requirements
Prohibited practices (e.g., blanket bans, reliance on arrests)
Procedures for individualized assessments
Implement clear, defensible standards
Define which convictions warrant mandatory denial and which require further review. Ensure the criteria align with HUD’s focus on actual risk to safety and property.
Document individualized assessments
Develop a consistent process for evaluating mitigating factors and documenting decisions. This protects both safety interests and compliance with the Fair Housing Act.
Strengthen monitoring and lease enforcement
HUD emphasizes not just screening new applicants but also ongoing monitoring to address criminal or dangerous behavior among existing residents that are applied fairly and consistently.
On September 16, 2025, HUD circulated a memorandum that was directed to the agency’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) headquarters staff, Office of Enforcement staff, regional directors and field supervisors and detailed immediate changes to the agency’s enforcement priorities.
Elimination of disparate-impact liability:
The EO (Executive Order) orders that the use of disparate-impact theory should be eliminated “in all contexts to the maximum degree possible.”
Revocation of prior regulatory approvals:
The EO rescinds prior presidential approvals of regulations that had allowed or enforced disparate-impact liability.
Deprioritization of enforcement:
All federal agencies are instructed to deprioritize enforcement of statutes and regulations rooted in disparate-impact liability, including under laws such as the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA).
Agency reviews and repeals:
The EO requires the Attorney General and regulatory agencies to review and repeal or amend any existing regulations, guidance, or consent decrees that rely on disparate-impact liability. That includes reviewing ongoing investigations, lawsuits, and permanent injunctions to determine whether to modify or terminate them.
Rejection of group-outcome mandates:
The EO frames disparate-impact liability as forcing businesses and institutions to “consider race” or other protected traits — something the EO characterizes as antithetical to constitutional equal protection and to a merit-based system.
Organizations may feel freer to adopt “neutral” criteria, such as credit history checks, criminal-background screening, degree or credential requirements, standardized tests, or other filters without fear of disparate-impact claims by federal authorities.
Agencies enforcing civil-rights laws (e.g., in housing, lending) are likely to scale back oversight of policies that produce unequal outcomes across demographic groups, as long as there is no evidence of intentional discrimination.
Plaintiffs and civil-rights advocates may find it harder to challenge systemic disparities resulting from neutral policies, unless they can show explicit intent to discriminate.
If you have any questions regarding the guidelines, please contact the IREM Government Affairs department at iremlegislation@irem.org.