Recent Changes — Land & Property

The U.S. Supreme Court in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 603 U.S. 520 (2024) (6-3; Gorsuch, J.) overruled Martin v. Boise, 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019) and held that anti-camping ordinances criminalize conduct rather than status under the Robinson-Powell framework, and therefore do not violate the Eighth Amendment even when applied against persons without practically available shelter. Enforcement discretion returns to local governments. Alternative constitutional protections remain available — Fourth Amendment unreasonable-search-and-seizure; Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection; state constitutional provisions. The parallel Better Days Ahead Outreach Inc. v. Borough of Pottstown injunction (E.D. Pa. 2023) for parts of southeastern Pennsylvania is implicated by the doctrinal shift. A constitutional protection that operated as a floor against punitive-enforcement responses to homelessness was withdrawn at the federal level; alternative protections may or may not substitute at scale.

Affects: Adult Homelessness Infrastructure.

The Pennsylvania FY 2024-25 budget (signed July 2024) included $2.5 million for the first statewide right-to-counsel program (eligibility ≤125% FPL); Pennsylvania is now one of six states with statewide RTC. The state-level architecture supplements the Philadelphia RTC ordinance and provides a baseline for tenant representation in PA jurisdictions outside Philadelphia.

Affects: Landlord-Tenant Law and Tenant Protections.

The 2023 proposed AFFH rule was withdrawn by HUD on January 16, 2025 (HUD Federal Register notice of withdrawal); on March 5, 2025 HUD issued an Interim Final Rule titled "Restoring Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Definitions and Certifications" that requires HUD grantees to self-attest to fair-housing-promoting actions in connection with their Consolidated Plans, Annual Action Plans, and Public Housing Agency Plans. The IFR retains the AFFH definition and certification requirement but removes the substantive Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) analytical-and-planning obligation that the 2015 rule required and the 2023 proposed rule would have re-established (under the "equity plan" framing). The AFFH regulatory framework above the FHA § 3608 statutory mandate has been substantively withdrawn at the regulatory level. On April 6, 2026 HUD additionally withdrew eight FHEO guidance documents in a Federal Register notice. The IFR remains pending finalization; no successor "equity plan" rulemaking is currently anticipated at HUD.

Affects: Fair Housing and Anti-Displacement. Sources: nlihc.org "HUD Releases Weakened AFFH Interim Final Rule" March 2025; nationalfairhousing.org; nlihc.org April 13 2026 FHEO guidance withdrawal coverage.

On April 23, 2025 President Trump issued Executive Order 14281, "Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy," directing federal agencies to review and revise or rescind regulations imposing disparate-impact liability. On January 14, 2026 HUD published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (91 Fed. Reg. 1475; "HUD's Implementation of the Fair Housing Act's Disparate Impact Standard") proposing to remove and reserve 24 CFR Part 100 Subpart G (§ 100.500) entirely — without replacement — and proposing to delete the cross-reference in § 100.5(b) tying part 100 illustrations to discriminatory-effect liability. The 30-day comment period closed February 13, 2026; final rule pending. The Supreme Court's holding in Texas Dep't of Housing & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, 576 U.S. 519 (2015) — that disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the FHA — remains binding precedent; rescission of HUD's regulatory burden-shifting framework eliminates the agency-level interpretive infrastructure but does not extinguish the cause of action. State fair-housing laws authorizing disparate-impact liability (including PHRA) are unaffected.

Affects: Fair Housing and Anti-Displacement. Sources: federalregister.gov 2026-00590; consumerfinancemonitor.com January 14 2026; nlihc.org.

Three concurrent structural changes produce a substantively transformed CFPB. (a) The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA, signed July 4, 2025; P.L. 119-21) reduced the CFPB statutory funding cap from 12% to 6.5% of the Federal Reserve's 2009 operating expenses adjusted for labor costs — a durable funding-ceiling cut roughly halving the bureau's draw. (b) Staff reductions: bureau headcount declined from approximately 1,750 at the start of 2025 to approximately 1,100 by early 2026, with an April 2026 administration filing in NTEU v. Vought (D.C. Circuit) seeking court approval for a further reduction-in-force to 556 (the original 90% RIF was withdrawn after April 2025 preliminary injunction); en banc D.C. Circuit oral argument February 2026. (c) Operational posture shift: February 2025 stop-work orders; supervisory examinations closed; enforcement cases terminated; Washington headquarters lease terminated February 2026; HUD/CFPB ECOA Joint Statement on immigration-status consideration withdrawn January 12, 2026; CFPB November 2025 NPRM proposed eliminating disparate-impact liability from Regulation B (ECOA implementation). Per GAO Report GAO-26-108448 (released February 9, 2026), the structural transformation is documented as "actions to reduce the size and scope of [CFPB] activities and staffing." Structural withdrawal is the dominant feature, not episodic posture variation.

Affects: Housing Finance and the Mortgage Market. Sources: gao.gov/products/gao-26-108448; npr.org CFPB January 21 2026 reporting; consumerfinancialserviceslawmonitor.com February 19 2026 GAO summary; federalreserve.gov OBBBA implementation guidance.

The 2023 CRA Final Rule (Federal Register February 1, 2024) revised assessment-area definitions, evaluation frameworks, and data requirements with most provisions originally scheduled to apply January 1, 2026; the rule was preliminarily enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on March 29, 2024 (Texas Bankers Ass'n v. OCC), and on March 28, 2025 the OCC, FRB, and FDIC announced joint intent to rescind the 2023 Final Rule. On July 16, 2025 the agencies issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to rescind the 2023 rule and reinstate the pre-2023 (1995-era) framework with technical amendments. Compliance with the 2023 rule's substantive requirements never took effect; the 1995 framework remains operative pending the rescission rulemaking. The CRA-non-bank-coverage gap finding (G7-SD2-02) is unchanged: independent mortgage companies remain outside CRA under either framework; the modernization that would not have closed the coverage gap has been withdrawn before taking effect.

Affects: Housing Finance and the Mortgage Market. Sources: occ.gov nr-ia-2025-26 (March 28 2025); federalreserve.gov community-reinvestment-act-final-rule.htm (July 16 2025 NPRM).

A documented sequence: HUD missed the statutory mid-2025 deadline for FY2025 NOFO release. On November 13, 2025, HUD released an FY2025 NOFO with major substantive changes — capping permanent-housing funding at 30% (a sharp departure from the McKinney-Vento Act's permanent-supportive-housing priority and HUD's Housing First guidance), incorporating anti-DEI and gender-identity-related conditions, and adding new conditions on previously-awarded CoC grants. Two lawsuits filed November 25, 2025 (20-state attorneys general coalition led by NY, CA, NJ) and December 1, 2025 (cities of Boston/Tucson/San Francisco; Santa Clara County; National Alliance to End Homelessness; NLIHC) challenged the NOFO under the Administrative Procedure Act. On December 8, 2025 HUD rescinded the FY2025 NOFO; on December 23, 2025 the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island issued a preliminary injunction directing HUD to process renewals under the FY2024-25 NOFO; on January 9, 2026 HUD reopened the FY2024-25 NOFO with a February 9, 2026 submission deadline. The FY2026 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 119-75, enacted February 3, 2026) included bridge protections: automatic-renewal schedule if FY2025 awards are delayed; June 1, 2026 FY2026 NOFO deadline and December 1, 2026 awards deadline; Tenant-Based Rental Assistance funded $34.4-34.9 billion; Tenant Protection Vouchers $600-601 million ($264M increase); Project-Based Rental Assistance $18.5 billion. The HUD Office of Community Planning and Development lost approximately 37% of its workforce between January and June 2025. NLIHC estimated the rescinded NOFO would have put 170,000 in PSH at risk of returning to homelessness; preserved by litigation plus Congressional bridge action.

Affects: Adult Homelessness Infrastructure. Sources: congress.gov CRS IN12626 February 4 2026; appropriations.senate.gov November 13 2025 letter; shelterforce.org January 23 2026; community.solutions FY2026 NOFO impact analysis; gao.gov GAO-26-108448 HUD CPD data; schoolhouseconnection.org February 26 2026 FY26 deal summary.

Four documented administrative actions narrow the administrative-route protective function in Pathway 1 (FHEO administrative complaint): (a) September 16, 2025: HUD FHEO Guidance Memorandum on Fair Housing Enforcement and Prioritization of Resources stating that the office will prioritize claims of intentional discrimination over disparate-impact theory claims; (b) November 25, 2025: HUD Secretary Turner letter to PHAs and assisted-housing owners on criminal screening (the "One Strike and You're Out" framing) substantially changing screening protocols; (c) December 9, 2025: DOJ final rule rescinding disparate-impact provisions in the implementing regulations for Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (d) April 6, 2026: HUD withdrew eight FHEO guidance documents in a Federal Register notice. The FHA private-right-of-action under § 3613 and Inclusive Communities disparate-impact precedent remain operative; the agency-level interpretive infrastructure that conditioned the administrative route's substantive content has been substantially withdrawn.

Affects: Fair Housing and Anti-Displacement. Sources: naahq.org January 28 2026; nlihc.org April 13 2026; justice.gov/crt rule Title VI rescission December 9 2025.

Mayor Cherelle Parker formally unveiled the H.O.M.E. (Housing Opportunities Made Easy) plan March 24, 2025 — $2 billion structure (30,000 units = 13,500 new construction + 16,500 preservation; $800M in city bonds in two $400M tranches; $1B in publicly owned land contributions; supplementary federal HOME/CDBG/HOPWA/ESG, City General Fund, Housing Trust Fund, philanthropic and private streams). June 2025: City Council approved initial bond authorization. Fall 2025: Council passed an amended budget resolution prioritizing low-income households (≤30% AMI emphasis) over the administration's broader workforce-housing scope (up to 100% AMI for some programs), requiring redo of the bond ordinance. January 22, 2026: Council unanimously reapproved the amended bond authorization in the first session day of the year, with Mayor Parker signing the bill into law the same afternoon. Late March / early April 2026: First $400 million tranche issued. Year 1 budget allocation: $277 million across 30+ programs, including significant allocations to Basic Systems Repair Program (eligibility expanded to 100% AMI in some streams), Turn the Key (Mayor Parker's stated intent to put the program "on steroids"), affordable-housing preservation gap-funding, eviction prevention, and homelessness prevention. Adjacent legislative vehicles in early 2026: streamlined-disposition legislation for ~1,000 city-owned parcels (passed January 2026); Brith Sholom House senior-housing redevelopment partnership; modular-housing manufacturing facility plan for the Logan Triangle.

Affects: Affordable Housing Development. Sources: phila.gov March 25 2025 Parker administration H.O.M.E. announcement; whyy.org June 12 2025 / December 12 2025 / January 23 2026 / March 30 2026 coverage; inquirer.com January 22 2026 bond reapproval; nlc.org December 4 2025 Brooks article.

As of April 28, 2026, Right to Counsel covers ten Philadelphia ZIP codes (19121, 19124, 19131, 19132, 19134, 19139, 19141, 19144, 19153, 19154); the April 2026 expansion added 19131 and 19153, identified by Reinvestment Fund analysis as highest-need based on eviction volume, eviction-filing rate, and family poverty. With this expansion, RTC covers more than 35% of Philadelphia renters facing eviction. FY25 documented outcomes: PEPP (Philadelphia Eviction Prevention Project) partners served 4,600+ households (1,750+ in RTC ZIP codes); zero default judgments for PEPP-represented tenants compared to over 35% in unrepresented cases; PEPP-represented tenants more than twice as likely to prevail at trial; 80%+ rate of housing preservation/stabilization/improvement; 70% rate of critical financial relief in remaining cases; eviction filings reduced approximately 40% citywide attributed to combined RTC + PEPP + EDP architecture.

Affects: Landlord-Tenant Law and Tenant Protections. Sources: phila.gov April 28 2026 city press release "City Officials Announce Expansion of Right to Counsel"; whyy.org RTC expansion coverage; civilrighttocounsel.org Philadelphia RTC tracker.

The post-Grants Pass alternative-protection landscape has developed in the verification window structurally consistent with the substructure-flagged framing — Sotomayor's dissent (603 U.S. at 553-66; "It is quite possible, indeed likely, that these and similar ordinances will face more days in court") named alternative legal theories now being tested in three documented directions: (a) state-constitution challenges proceeding in Washington state and elsewhere, where the Washington Constitution's prohibition on "cruel" punishment is more protective than the federal "cruel and unusual" standard — ACLU-WA challenges to Spokane's unlawful-camping and sit-and-lie ordinances; Northwest Justice Project / Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness representation in Hale v. City of Burien (W.D. Wash. 2024); (b) at least six Washington cities (Aberdeen, Auburn, Kennewick, Lakewood, Richland, Spokane) passed new or modified anti-encampment laws in the year following the decision, with several eliminating shelter-availability prerequisites and increasing penalties (fines up to $1,000 + 90 days jail); (c) alternative federal-constitutional theories continue to be tested — Excessive Fines Clause; Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure; Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection; ADA reasonable-accommodation. No Supreme Court reversal or substantial constitutional reframing has occurred. The protective-architecture-withdrawal finding is unchanged at the federal Eighth Amendment level; alternative-protection development is incremental and jurisdiction-specific. The Philadelphia-specific encampment-management posture remains a live retrieval candidate; no Philadelphia equivalent of the Washington-state-constitution litigation pattern is documented in web-search-tractable sources at verification date.

Affects: Adult Homelessness Infrastructure. Sources: cascadepbs.org December 2024 / June 2025; nlihc.org "Supreme Court Rules on Homelessness" March 2025; orcities.org "Implications of Grants Pass" 2024.

The 30-year LIHTC design horizon set in 1986 (26 U.S.C. § 42; 15-year compliance period plus 15-year extended use) produces a cyclical affordability-loss pressure now active in PA-3 at scale. Approximately 100 of 450 Philadelphia affordable-housing complexes (~22%) are set to expire over the next decade per National Housing Preservation Database. The Neighborhood Restorations 925-unit portfolio approaching a July 2026 deadline is the active near-term exemplar case: a private developer's portfolio of subsidized rental units across more than a dozen neighborhoods including gentrifying areas; the developer offered the portfolio to the city for preservation but the practical capacity to assemble the priority-bid package within the statutory window is the active question. H.O.M.E. first-phase preservation budget ($46.1M; per MC08) is a substantive resource against the documented gap, but the gap (~12% of subsidized units potentially affordability-loss-vulnerable over a decade) exceeds any single-cycle preservation-budget capacity. The federal LIHTC design horizon was set in 1986; the affordability consequences of that design choice arrive cyclically as projects mature.

Affects: Affordable Housing Development. Sources: preservationdatabase.org; Philadelphia journalism coverage; CLS Philadelphia.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, 576 U.S. 519 (2015) recognized that the Fair Housing Act encompasses disparate-impact liability, establishing the central constitutional-statutory anchor for SD4 enforcement architecture. The ICP burden-shifting framework: plaintiff demonstrates significant statistical disparity and identifies specific policy causing it; defendant demonstrates legitimate, non-discriminatory justification; plaintiff can counter with a less-discriminatory-alternative showing. The Supreme Court holding remains binding precedent even with MC02 proposed rescission of HUD's regulatory codification of the burden-shifting structure — rescission of HUD's regulatory framework eliminates the agency-level interpretive infrastructure but does not extinguish the cause of action. State fair-housing laws authorizing disparate-impact liability (including PHRA) are unaffected by MC02.

Affects: Fair Housing and Anti-Displacement (statutory foundation); cross-references all D7 SDs.

The 1934-1968 federally-supervised FHA underwriting regime explicitly incorporated racial segregation, refusing to insure mortgages in or near minority neighborhoods and requiring racially restrictive covenants in FHA-insured subdivisions. The wealth foreclosed by that regime did not accumulate in households excluded from it; the wealth-building mechanism that homeownership represents — and that subsequent generations of white households used to finance education, business formation, and intergenerational transfer — operated against an exclusion line whose effects compounded over decades. The present-day Black-white homeownership gap in Philadelphia is documented at approximately 25-30 percentage points (current ACS B25003 disaggregation by race is F-flagged at F7-SD2-05), correlating strongly with the 1930s HOLC mapping that codified the federally-supervised exclusion regime. The post-1968 statutory disavowal (FHA Title VIII; subsequent HMDA, CRA, ECOA enactments) did not retroactively remediate the foreclosed wealth; it ended the exclusion regime forward and created the accountability infrastructure within which present-day disparities are documented and litigated. The Mapping Inequality project (Richmond) documents statistically significant correlations between 1930s HOLC ratings and present-day homeownership rates, home values, credit access, and related outcomes.

Affects: Housing Finance and the Mortgage Market (structural through-line); cross-references SD1 tangled-title, SD4 gentrification-displacement geography, SD6 racial disproportionality in homeless population, SD7 housing-age distribution.