Calling 911 Shouldn’t Lead to an Eviction

Last week, the federal government took a major step toward ending policies that disproportionately result in the eviction of domestic violence survivors, families of color, and people with disabilities — simply because they place a call to 911 for help.

The latest reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) guarantees the right to report 911 emergencies from one’s home. This means that cities cannot require or threaten evictions or lease non-renewals, impose criminal penalties or fines, refuse to issue rental licenses, or close properties when residents exercise their rights to seek assistance.

The legislation responds to municipal policies that are widespread but usually operate with minimal community awareness or oversight. Cities have enacted local “nuisance” ordinances or adopted “crime-free” housing programs that punish residents who call 911 or who simply live in properties where criminal activities occur, regardless of whether the tenant is at fault. Police departments are typically charged with enforcing these policies, often pressuring landlords to evict families or bear heavy fines or other consequences. They generally provide no notice or process for tenants to contest alleged violations. Tenants find themselves faced with a horrible dilemma: stop seeking help or risk losing their homes.

Research shows that these policies particularly harm communities of color, low-income households, people with disabilities, and domestic violence survivors. For example, a study of Milwaukee, Wisconsin’s ordinance found that properties in Black neighborhoods had the highest likelihood of being deemed “nuisances,” that property owners took steps to discourage tenants from calling 911, and that nearly one third of all nuisance citations arose from domestic violence incidents, resulting in survivors’ evictions. Another study of the effect of Ohio nuisance ordinances showed similar results on survivors of domestic violence, people of color, and people with disabilities.

An ACLU report found that domestic violence made up the single largest category of ordinance enforcement in Binghamton and Fulton, New York and that in Binghamton, landlords’ most common response to a nuisance property warning was pursuing eviction against the tenants who were the subject of police response. And an investigation in Peoria, Illinois revealed that the city concentrated its nuisance ordinance enforcement against buildings with predominantly Black tenants in predominantly Black neighborhoods.

For the last decade, the ACLU, with its state affiliates and many partners, have fought these policies. We have challenged them in court, bringing multiple federal lawsuits on behalf of domestic violence survivors as well as organizations advocating for fair housing and people of color, asserting First Amendment, due process, and Fair Housing Act claims. We also have advocated for state legislation protecting residents from these local policies, enacting new laws in 10 states, as well as calling on numerous cities to refuse to enact or to repeal existing ordinances and programs. Our work succeeded in eliminating many of these harmful policies and procuring relief for tenants who experienced their devastating effects. But these efforts have tackled the issue city by city, state by state.

With the reauthorization of VAWA, all local or state governments that receive federal funding through the Community Development Block Grant Program, which disbursed more than $3 billion last year, must now comply with the new protections once they become effective on October 1. Residents whose rights are violated will also be able to seek remedies, and all governmental grantees will be required to report any policies they have in place to HUD and certify the steps they will take to come into compliance.

Home is not just an address. It is central to all of life’s opportunities — what services, health care, jobs, schools, and transportation people can access, and where we build community with other families. For survivors of domestic violence, secure housing is key to leading lives of dignity. The enactment of these federal protections will ensure that residents can seek emergency assistance without fear of losing their homes.

Stay informed about our work

Trump's Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic

The Trump administration has not been subtle in its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. Whether threatening to cut off grants to sanctuary cities, to block financial assistance to states that push back against the president’s demands, or to freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country, Trump and his allies want us to believe they can wield the federal budget like a weapon. The reality is that the administration’s ability to withhold or condition funding is far more limited than they let on. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law stand firmly in the way of this brazen abuse of presidential power. Trump’s Attempted Funding Freeze? Blocked Immediately A week into his second administration, Trump attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans that fund a vast array of critical services already approved by Congress. If allowed to go into effect, this unprecedented and far-reaching...

Documents Reveal Confusion and Lack of Training in Texas Execution

As Texas seeks to execute Carl Buntion today and Melissa Lucio next week, it is worth reflecting on the grave and irreversible failures that occurred when the state executed Quintin Jones on May 19, 2021. For the first time in its history — and in violation of a federal court’s directive and the Texas Administrative Code — Texas excluded the media from witnessing the state’s execution of Quintin Jones. In the months that followed, Texas executed two additional people without providing any assurance that the underlying dysfunction causing errors at Mr. Jones’ execution were addressed. This is particularly concerning given that Texas has executed far more people than any other state and has botched numerous executions. The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press have a right to observe executions. Media access to executions is a critical form of public oversight as the government exerts its power to end a human life. Consistent with Texas policy, two reporters travelled t...

The Supreme Court Declined a Protestors' Rights Case. Here's What You Need to Know.

The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, Mckesson v. Doe , that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence. Across the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means. What Happened in Mckesson v. Doe? The case, Mckesson v. Doe , was brought by a police officer against DeRay Mckesson , a prominent civil rights activi...

Search This Blog