FAIR HOUSING MONTH IN WASHINGTON: Why It Still Matters

Every April, Fair Housing Month marks the anniversary of the federal Fair Housing Act, signed on April 11, 1968. For Washington housing providers, it’s more than a historical date. It’s a reminder that the way we rent, screen, advertise, and manage property today sits on top of a long and complicated history.

Understanding that history isn’t about guilt. It’s about clarity. And in Washington State, clarity matters.

A History That Still Shapes Our Neighborhoods

Housing segregation in Washington didn’t happen by accident.

In the early and mid-1900s, discrimination was built directly into public policy. Banks refused to insure loans in racially integrated neighborhoods. Federal programs excluded Black Americans. Entire neighborhoods were zoned or marketed to keep people out.

Then there were the practices that weren’t always written into law but were just as powerful. Banks redlined communities. Real estate professionals adopted policies that allowed segregation. Developers placed racially restrictive covenants into deeds across the Seattle area, preventing non-white buyers from purchasing homes. Those restrictions were legally enforceable for decades.

The legal language is gone. The patterns those policies created are not.

The Fair Housing Act Changed the Rules

The modern framework began with the Fair Housing Act, passed shortly after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. It followed other landmark decisions and laws like Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act.

The Fair Housing Act made it illegal to refuse to rent, set different terms, misrepresent availability, or advertise preferences based on protected characteristics. It also made retaliation illegal. That part is important. A tenant who raises a fair housing concern is protected, even if the complaint turns out to be unfounded.

Later amendments added sex, disability, and familial status. They also introduced the concepts of reasonable accommodation and reasonable modification for people with disabilities. Those requirements remain some of the most commonly misunderstood areas of compliance.

Washington Goes Further

Washington has never limited itself to federal minimums. The Washington Law Against Discrimination has expanded repeatedly since 1949.

Today, Washington protections go well beyond the federal list. In addition to race, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status, state law includes marital status, sexual orientation, veteran or military status, service animal use, source of income, and citizenship or immigration status.

For rental housing providers, this means policies that may be permissible in other states may not be lawful here.

Criminal History and “Disparate Impact”

Criminal history is not listed as a protected class under federal law. However, enforcement agencies look closely at blanket bans.

Why? Because racial disparities exist throughout the criminal justice system in Washington. Arrest rates, charging practices, sentencing outcomes, and legal financial obligations have all shown disproportionate impacts on communities of color.

If a screening policy excludes anyone with “any criminal history,” regulators may evaluate whether that policy has a disparate impact on protected groups.

In 2017, Washington’s Attorney General brought enforcement actions against housing providers for precisely that issue.

In the City of Seattle, Fair Chance Housing rules go even further, largely prohibiting the use of criminal history in rental decisions, with narrow exceptions.

The lesson for housing providers is not to ignore safety concerns. It’s to avoid overly broad, automatic exclusions.

Source of Income Protections

In 2018, Washington adopted statewide source of income protections. That means landlords cannot reject applicants simply because they use a Housing Choice Voucher or other lawful rental assistance.

You can still screen for standard business criteria. What you cannot do is treat rental assistance differently from other lawful income sources.

Seattle adopted similar protections earlier and pairs them with additional procedural requirements.

For many small housing providers, this change required operational adjustments. But it is now firmly embedded in Washington’s Residential Landlord-Tenant framework.

Immigration and Citizenship Status

In 2020, Washington expanded protections again. Landlords may not treat applicants differently based on citizenship or immigration status. Threatening to contact immigration authorities is prohibited. Higher deposits or different screening standards based solely on immigration status are also unlawful.

The practical takeaway is simple: apply the same standards consistently and accept reasonable alternative documentation when needed.

Direct vs. Indirect Discrimination

Fair housing law addresses both obvious and subtle problems.

Direct discrimination is easy to identify. Refusing to rent to someone because of their race or religion is clearly illegal.

Indirect discrimination can be more complicated. A neutral policy that appears fair on its face may still be unlawful if it disproportionately harms a protected group and is not necessary to achieve a legitimate business purpose. In Washington, regulators and courts pay attention to both.

Why Fair Housing Month Still Matters

For rental owners and housing professionals, Fair Housing Month isn’t just symbolic. It’s a reminder that policies must be carefully written, screening must be consistent, advertising must be neutral, exceptions must be legally justified, and documentation matters.

Washington operates in one of the most highly regulated fair housing environments in the country. But compliance is not just about avoiding penalties. It’s about professionalism and predictability.

Fair housing law evolved in response to real harm and real exclusion. Understanding that history makes today’s rules easier to navigate.

Fair Housing Month is an opportunity to review policies, refresh training, and recommit to operating both legally and fairly. In Washington, that’s not just good ethics. It’s good business.

Meanwhile, at the Federal Level

While Washington’s fair housing framework has been expanding for decades, something very different has been happening in Washington, D.C.

Since the fall of 2025, the Trump Administration has moved to streamline HUD’s fair housing regulatory footprint. The direction is consistent with the Administration’s broader de-regulatory agenda, and several of the changes address long-standing industry concerns about regulatory overreach.

For RHAWA members, these shifts are worth understanding. But because Washington State law governs how we screen, advertise, and manage rental housing, they don’t change what we need to do.

What HUD Has Done

In April 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14281, titled Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy, directing federal agencies to eliminate the use of disparate impact liability “to the maximum degree possible.”

HUD moved quickly. In September 2025, the agency announced it would prioritize cases involving intentional discrimination and de-prioritize investigations built on disparate impact theories. The next day, HUD rescinded several guidance documents, including those addressing criminal background screening, appraisal bias, and environmental justice.

In January 2026, HUD published a proposed rule that would remove its regulatory framework for disparate impact entirely, eliminating the burden-shifting test the agency had maintained since 2013 and leaving interpretation to the courts.

The Department of Justice followed a similar path, finalizing a rule in December 2025 that rescinds disparate impact provisions under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Together, these represent the most significant restructuring of federal fair housing enforcement in decades.

Criminal Screening Has Changed Direction

This area deserves special attention because of how directly it touches day-to-day screening decisions.

HUD’s 2016 guidance had warned housing providers that blanket criminal history bans could violate the Fair Housing Act under a disparate impact theory. That guidance has now been rescinded.

In its place, HUD Secretary Scott Turner issued a November 2025 letter encouraging Public Housing Authorities and assisted housing owners to actively screen for criminal history and monitor households for safety concerns. The letter also eliminates HUD’s prior requirement for individualized assessments and shortens the timeframe for applicants to dispute inaccurate information.

The federal posture on criminal screening has shifted substantially from the prior administration.

What This Means in Washington

These are federal regulatory changes. They affect what HUD investigates and how the agency allocates enforcement resources. They do not change Washington State law.

Washington’s WLAD is enforced by the Washington State Human Rights Commission, which operates under state authority, not federal direction. The federal Fair Housing Act covers seven protected classes. Washington covers all of those, plus sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, veteran or military status, citizenship or immigration status, and source of income. Several local jurisdictions add further protections still. When HUD shifts priorities, nothing moves in Olympia.

On criminal screening, the rescission of HUD’s guidance does not change the analysis here. The Attorney General’s 2017 enforcement actions were brought under state law, not federal guidance. In Seattle, the Fair Chance Housing Ordinance still restricts the use of criminal history in rental decisions regardless of HUD’s position.

Here’s a practical example. Say you own a duplex in Tacoma and you’re reviewing your screening criteria this spring. You read that HUD has dropped its guidance against blanket criminal history bans. You might think: maybe I can simplify my policy and just deny anyone with a conviction. You can’t. Not in Washington. A disparate impact claim under the WLAD looks the same today as it did a year ago. Your screening policy still needs to be tailored, consistently applied, and defensible under state law.

The federal standard has shifted. Washington’s has not.

The Practical Takeaway

The Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Inclusive Communities confirmed that disparate impact claims can be brought under the Fair Housing Act.

That precedent stands regardless of HUD’s regulatory framework. Private plaintiffs can still bring these cases. The legal theory is intact even as the federal regulatory infrastructure is being streamlined.

HUD has also lost an estimated 4,000 staff positions. Investigations will take longer, which means a longer gap between an incident and the moment you may be asked to produce documentation. Consistent record keeping matters more now, not less.

None of this should change how you operate in Washington. The RLTA, the WLAD, source of income protections, and local ordinances are all state and local law, unaffected by federal deregulation. If you are following Washington law, you are already exceeding the federal standard by a wide margin.

Keep your screening criteria consistent, your documentation thorough and your policies calibrated to Washington law.

Formal legal advice and review is recommended prior to selection and use of this information. RHAWA does not represent your selection or execution of this information as appropriate for your specific circumstance. The material contained and represented herein, although obtained from reliable sources, is not considered legal advice or to be used as a substitution for legal counsel.