42 U.S.C. § 3604
Discrimination in the sale or rental of housing and other prohibited practices
1988—Pub. L. 100–430, § 6(e), inserted “and other prohibited practices” in section catchline.
Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 100–430, § 6(b)(2), inserted “familial status,” after “sex,”.
Subsecs. (c) to (e). Pub. L. 100–430, § 6(b)(1), inserted “handicap, familial status,” after “sex,”.
Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 100–430, § 6(a), added subsec. (f).
Subsec. (f)(3)(A). Pub. L. 100–430, § 15, which directed the substitution of “except that, in the case of a rental, the landlord may where it is reasonable to do so condition permission for a modification on the renter agreeing to restore the interior of the premises to the condition that existed before the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted.” for the period at the end of subpar. (A) was executed by making the substitution for a semicolon as the probable intent of Congress because subpar. (A) ended with a semicolon, not a period.
1974—Pub. L. 93–383 inserted “, sex” after “religion” wherever appearing in cls. (a) to (e).
Amendment by Pub. L. 100–430 effective on 180th day beginning after
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2,775
cases (953 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Dyan Hunt v. Aimco Properties, L.P.
Dyan Hunt v. Aimco Properties, L.P. (2016)
“The Hunts alleged that Aimco violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604 , by denying or making unavailable to them their apartment because of Karl’s disability; discriminating in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the apartment rental because of Karl’s disability; and…”
Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc. v. Lincoln Prop. Co. (2019)
“Specifically, ICP seeks a declaration that Lincoln and the Owners have violated 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (a) and 42 U.S.C. § 1982 by declining to participate in the federal "Section 8" Housing Choice Voucher Program.”
Rodriguez v. Village Green Realty, Inc. (2015)
“The plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the defendants (1) made housing unavailable on the basis of disability in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (f)(1); (2) provided different terms, conditions, and privileges of rental,housing on the basis of disability in violation of 42 U.”
A Society Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Virginia (2011)
“See 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (b), (f)(2). Similarly, ASWAN contends that the FHA was violated by the City's communication to homeless people in 2009 that they would need to travel to the Conrad Center to sign up for the downtown overnight shelter using the intake services.”
Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island (2008)
“42 U.S.C. § 3604 (f)(3)(B). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of leave to supplement and its order of summary judgment on all but the reasonable accommodation claim, which we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)
“See 42 U. S. C. §3604 . Employment by religious organizations.”
Liana Revock v. Cowpet Bay West Condominium As (2017)
“They allege violations of their right to a reasonable accommodation of their disabilities, 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (f)(3)(B), and interference with the exercise of their fair housing rights, 42 U.”
Carol Vorchheimer v. Philadelphian Owners Associati (2018)
“She alleged that the defendants were violating 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (f) by refusing to let her leave her walker in The Philadelphian's lobby so she could retrieve it by herself.”
Civil Rights Education & Enforcement Center v. Hospitality Properties Trust (2017)
“363 , 372–74 (1982), in which the Supreme Court held that testers have standing to sue under Sections 804(d) and 812(a) of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604 (d), 3612(a). The Court first noted that Section 804(d) prohibits representations “to any person because of…”
Webster Bank v. Oakley (2003)
“Specifically, the defendant contends that 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (f) (1) and (2) 12 are applicable to a lender’s attempt to foreclose upon the mortgage of a disabled borrower because the enforce *553 ment of mortgage loan agreements “make[s] unavailable or den[ies]” a dwelling, and is…”
Fair Housing Coun., San Fernando v. Roommates. Com (2008)
“with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates [a] preference, limitation, or discrimination," in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (c). The CDA does not grant immunity for inducing third parties to express illegal preferences.”
Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp. (2005)
“" 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (f)(9). The legislative history makes it clear that this exception may not be based on stereotypes: Any claim that an individual's tenancy poses a direct threat and a substantial risk of harm must be established on the basis of a history of overt acts or…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 3604(4)(f) — 1 case
— 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) — 10 cases
Doe v. City of Butler (1989)
United States v. Gilman (1972)
Glover v. HPC - Eight (2022)
— 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b) — 30 cases
Bloch v. Frischholz (2009)
United States v. Gilman (1972)
Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
— 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c) — 4 cases
Czerwinski v. Gallagher (2023)
— 42 U.S.C. § 3604(e) — 2 cases
— 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f) — 3 cases
— 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1) — 7 cases
— 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)(A) — 1 case
Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp. (2004)
— 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)(B) — 2 cases
— 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2) — 2 cases
— 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3) — 2 cases
— 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) — 2 cases
— 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.