Overview
On March 7, 2025, Cohen Milstein and the Public Justice Center submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court of Maryland in support of petitioner Katrina Hare in Hare v. David S. Brown Enterprises, LTD.
The case revolves around Katrina Hare, an elderly and disabled African American woman who was denied housing by a landlord because she did not meet its minimum income requirement of $47,700 a year, even though her Housing Choice Voucher would have covered all but $126 of the rent.
The Circuit Court of Baltimore County ruled in favor of the landlord and claimed the denial was not discriminatory.
Overview of Amici Curiae Argument
Congress designed the federal Housing Choice Voucher (“HCV”) program to expand access to safe, affordable housing and to break patterns of economic and racial segregation. It serves as a critical lifeline for millions of low-income tenants—many of whom are people of color, seniors, people with disabilities, and families with children. Maryland adopted the Housing Opportunities Made Equal (“HOME”) Act in 2020 to further the goals of the HCV program by prohibiting discrimination based on “source of income,” which includes Housing Choice Vouchers. However, landlords have begun imposing arbitrary and discriminatory barriers that undermine the effectiveness of the HCV program and violate the HOME Act. One such barrier is requiring voucher holders to meet minimum-income thresholds based on an apartment’s full rental amount—that is, the portion of the rent guaranteed by a government voucher as well as the portion of the rent for which the tenant is responsible.
Amici Curiae are organizations whose clients have and will continue to suffer serious and irreversible harm from the screening criteria at issue here. The challenged practice, while cloaked in the appearance of neutrality, effectively allows landlords to circumvent the HOME Act’s prohibition on source-of-income discrimination. By requiring voucher holders to meet minimum-income thresholds based on the full rental amount, rather than the rental amount for which the tenant is actually responsible for personally paying, Respondent treats voucher holders differently than applicants without vouchers. This practice also disproportionately excludes voucher holders from accessing housing—perpetuating the very segregation and economic immobility that the HCV program and HOME Act were designed to address.
Amici Curiae
Public Justice Center, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, National Housing Law Project, Equal Rights Center, National Fair Housing Alliance, Homeless Persons Representation Project, Inc., Fair Housing Justice Center, Disability Rights Maryland, Poverty & Race Research Action Council, Baltimore Regional Housing Partnership, Maryland Legal Aid, and Housing Works.