Source of Income Discrimination Laws by State: Can Apartment Ads Say 'No Section 8'?

Federal law versus state law: why the ad itself is the violation

The federal Fair Housing Act does not list source of income. Its advertising ban, 42 U.S.C. 3604(c), covers race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status and national origin.

Strong state laws add a separate ban on ads indicating a source of income preference, which makes the ad itself the violation. In Washington, RCW 59.18.255(2) bars any "communication, notice, advertisement, or sign of any kind" indicating "a preference, limitation, or requirement based on any source of income."

New York's Executive Law 296(5)(a)(3) goes further: it covers ads and also "any form of application" and any "record or inquiry" that expresses a source of income limitation. Illinois (775 ILCS 5/3-102(F)) has the same reach. Application forms and screening questions are in scope in both. For other classes that vary by state, see fair housing protected classes by state.

Source of income discrimination laws by state: the table

This table follows the March 2026 update of PRRAC's Appendix B, checked against official text for Washington, New York, Michigan and Delaware. "Ad clause" means the statute names source of income in its advertising ban. "Confirm" means we have not read the clause; those states still ban refusing to rent, so a "no vouchers" line is hard to defend.

8 ad and screening practices that break source of income laws

Each of these turns up in real apartment marketing, and each one fails at least one statute in the table above.

1. 01

   "No Section 8", "no vouchers", "vouchers not accepted"

   It violates the ad clause in California (Gov. Code 12955(c)), Colorado, Illinois, Michigan (MCL 554.601c(1)(h)), New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington and Hawaii, Guam from October 1, 2026, and many city laws. Delete it; do not soften it to "vouchers considered case by case."

2. 02

   "Income must be 3x the rent" with no voucher rule

   Neutral on its face, unlawful in effect in the tenant-share states above. Add one sentence to published criteria: "For applicants with rental assistance, the income requirement applies to the applicant's share of the rent." In Michigan, also confirm with counsel how voucher income is counted.

3. 03

   "Employment income only" or "must show pay stubs"

   Definitions are broad: New York names child support, alimony, Social Security and public assistance; Rhode Island adds SSI and veterans assistance. Say "verifiable income from any lawful source."

4. 04

   A "Do you have Section 8?" screening question

   New York 296(5)(a)(3) and Illinois 3-102(F) cover application forms and inquiries, not only ads. Ask every applicant the same income questions.

5. 05

   Different deposits, fees or terms for voucher holders

   Washington (59.18.255(1)(c)) and Michigan (554.601c(1)(b)) name "fees" directly, and DC treats extra fees or deposits for subsidized tenants as presumptive discrimination.

6. 06

   Credit score cutoffs applied to subsidized applicants

   Colorado (C.R.S. 38-12-904) and DC limit the use of credit scores for applicants with housing subsidies. A national minimum score needs a property-level override there.

7. 07

   "We're not taking vouchers right now" on the phone or in chat

   Colorado (24-34-502(1)(o)), Washington (59.18.255(1)(g)) and New York also bar telling someone a unit is unavailable when it is. Scripts and chatbot answers need the same rewrite.

8. 08

   One national template copied everywhere

   In Brynson's analysis of 6,000 properties and 1.6M units, about 89% of communities described themselves differently across listing sites, so a line removed from the website can survive on an ILS. Fix the template, then check every channel.

States that weaken or preempt source of income protections

PRRAC lists four states whose laws do not, in practice, protect voucher holders from most landlords, and seven that stop or limit local protections.

Weakened statewide laws

• Maine (5 M.R.S. 4581-A): Dussault (2014): refusing voucher lease terms is not status discrimination.
• Minnesota (Minn. Stat. 363A.09): Edwards (2010) allows a business decision to stay out of Section 8. Minneapolis has its own ordinance.
• Texas: Property Code 202.024 bars only HOA covenants against renting to voucher holders.
• Wisconsin (Wis. Stat. 106.50): Knapp (1995) held Section 8 is not "lawful source of income". Madison and Dane and Milwaukee Counties have local laws.

States that preempt local protections

Preemption removes a local rule, not the federal Fair Housing Act. Whether a tax credit or other assisted property carries separate voucher duties is a question for counsel.

New York's March 2026 ruling: what changed and what did not

On March 5, 2026, New York's Appellate Division, Third Department, decided Matter of People of the State of N.Y. v. Commons West, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 01253, an Attorney General case against Ithaca landlords who refused Section 8 applicants. Because the voucher contract requires "full and free access" to units and records, the court held the law forces landlords to consent to warrantless searches.

The holding is narrow: Executive Law 296(5)(a)(1) is facially unconstitutional "to the extent" it bars refusing to rent because a person's income includes Section 8 vouchers. For operators:

• The advertising and application clause, 296(5)(a)(3), was not part of the holding, and New York City's law (Admin. Code 8-107) is separate.
• PRRAC's March 2026 update says the case is on appeal and the law still stands.
• Reintroducing refusal language on the strength of a decision under appeal is a call for counsel, not marketing.

The city and county layer in large multifamily markets

Local laws matter most where state law is weak or absent, or where the city adds penalties. These are the largest multifamily markets on PRRAC's local list.

PRRAC also lists Boston, Minneapolis, and Montgomery and Prince George's Counties. Seattle's guidance marks "Does not accept housing vouchers" and "No Section Eight" not allowed, and "Section 8 welcome" allowed.

Income requirements with a voucher: the 3x rent math

A standard "income of 3x the rent" rule, applied to the full rent, screens out most voucher holders without the word "voucher" appearing anywhere. Statutes and agencies handle it four ways:

• Test only the tenant's share: Washington (RCW 59.18.255(3), subtract the voucher from rent first), Rhode Island (34-37-4(c)), California (2 CCR 12143), Connecticut case law, and agency guidance in IL, MA, VA and NY.
• Count the voucher as income: Michigan, MCL 554.601c(1)(f), bars a landlord from excluding a rent voucher or subsidy when checking an income threshold. Agree the arithmetic with counsel.
• A fixed lower ratio: Colorado (C.R.S. 38-12-904) caps the check at 200% of the tenant's share of annual rent.
• No income-level test at all: DC bars income-level tests beyond legal thresholds, and credit scores, for subsidized applicants.

Fix the screening configuration, not only the ad: the Washington and Michigan ad clauses reach "any communication, notice, advertisement, or sign of any kind", which can include published qualifying criteria.

Enforcement examples from ad copy and screening

• New York, April 15, 2025. The Attorney General settled with Capital Region landlords of 24 units who had advertised that they did not accept Section 8. Terms: a $3,000 penalty, at least three units rented to voucher holders within a year, and staff training.
• California, April 2, 2024. The Civil Rights Department settled with a Novato apartment complex over a blanket ban on Section 8 voucher holders, found by Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California testers: $35,000 to that group, a written policy and staff training. CRD reported nearly 150 source of income settlements in three years.
• Second Circuit, January 21, 2025. FHJC v. Pelican Management (per PRRAC) held that a rent-to-income ratio based on full rent for voucher holders violates New York's law.

The Novato case shows the method: a tester mentions a voucher to a leasing office and records the answer. See also fair housing words to avoid.

How to clear source of income risk from a multi-state portfolio

A seven-step pass a compliance lead can run with marketing and leasing, property by property.

1. 1

   Map each property to its jurisdictions

   List the state, county and city for every property address and mark which have a source of income law, using the tables above and PRRAC's local list.

2. 2

   Choose a portfolio default

   Decide whether to remove voucher refusal language everywhere, including preemption states, or only where required. A single standard is simpler to enforce across templates and staff.

3. 3

   Pull every live surface

   Export current copy from ILS listings, the property website, paid ads, social posts, published qualifying criteria and the rental application.

4. 4

   Search for the risk phrases

   Search for "section 8", "voucher", "assistance", "subsidy", "employment income", "pay stubs" and "3x", and review every hit in context.

5. 5

   Fix the screening rules

   Set the income test to the tenant's share of rent in tenant-share states, apply Colorado's 200% rule and DC's limits, and remove credit score cutoffs where restricted.

6. 6

   Rewrite scripts and replies

   Give leasing, call center and social teams an approved answer to "Do you take vouchers?" for each jurisdiction.

7. 7

   Record and recheck

   Keep dated captures of the corrected copy and recheck against PRRAC's next update and this page's changelog each quarter.

Frequently asked questions