You've been searching for housing with your Section 8 voucher, or you rely on SSI, SSDI, or other public assistance to help pay rent. You call about a listing that seems perfect—the rent fits your budget, the location works, the apartment meets your needs. But when you mention your voucher or that you receive benefits, the landlord's tone shifts. "Oh, we don't take Section 8," they say. Or "No vouchers, sorry." Or "We're looking for tenants who pay rent from employment income, not government programs."
You feel the sting of rejection based on how you pay rent, not on whether you can pay rent. You wonder whether this is legal. You've heard that New York has protections against this kind of discrimination, but you're also confused because you've seen "No Section 8" in rental listings and heard landlords openly refusing vouchers. You think: "Can landlords legally refuse to rent to me because I have a Section 8 voucher or receive disability benefits? Isn't there a law against source of income discrimination? What are my rights? Has something changed recently in the law?"
Here's the truth: The answer to whether refusing Section 8 vouchers or other benefits is illegal discrimination in New York has become complicated and depends heavily on where you are and which court decision applies. Inside New York City, source of income discrimination including refusal of Section 8 vouchers remains clearly illegal under the NYC Human Rights Law, and you have strong protections and enforcement mechanisms. Statewide, a March 2024 appellate court decision (Shokrian) has created uncertainty by holding that New York State's source of income law is unconstitutional as applied to federal Section 8 vouchers—though this ruling is being challenged, doesn't apply to NYC, and doesn't eliminate protections for other forms of lawful income like SSI, SSDI, or public assistance.
Let me show you exactly what the law is supposed to protect, what the recent court decision changed and didn't change, how your protections differ based on whether you're in NYC versus elsewhere in New York, when "no vouchers" statements still constitute illegal discrimination, and what practical steps you should take to assert your rights and fight source of income discrimination.
Before diving into recent legal changes, understand what New York's source of income discrimination protections were designed to accomplish.
In 2019, New York State strengthened its Human Rights Law to explicitly prohibit housing discrimination based on lawful source of income. This reform was groundbreaking and positioned New York among the states with the strongest protections for voucher holders and people receiving public benefits.
The statutory language added "lawful source of income" to the list of protected characteristics in housing, defining it to include income derived from Social Security, supplemental security income and other government assistance programs, and housing subsidies including Section 8 vouchers. This wasn't a vague protection—the statute explicitly named Section 8 and other housing assistance programs as protected income sources.
The legislative intent was clear and well-documented. Lawmakers recognized that voucher holders, many of whom are people with disabilities, families with children, seniors, and people of color, faced rampant housing discrimination. Landlords routinely refused vouchers through "No Section 8" ads, verbal refusals, or pretextual excuses. This discrimination locked voucher holders out of large portions of the rental market, concentrating poverty, limiting housing choice, and perpetuating residential segregation. By prohibiting source of income discrimination, the legislature aimed to open housing opportunities and combat the intertwined discrimination voucher holders faced.
The practical effect was supposed to be that landlords could no longer refuse to rent to someone simply because they pay with a Section 8 voucher instead of employment income, or because they receive SSI instead of wages, or because their rent comes from any other lawful source. A landlord would have to evaluate applicants based on their total income (including vouchers and benefits), ability to pay rent, credit, rental history, and other legitimate criteria—not on where their money comes from.
Violations were supposed to be enforceable through the New York State Division of Human Rights, the Attorney General's office, and private lawsuits. The protection extended statewide, covering all of New York beyond just New York City.
New York City has its own, separate source of income discrimination law that predates and exists independently of the state law.
NYC Human Rights Law has prohibited source of income discrimination in housing since 2008, and the law has been strengthened through amendments and aggressive enforcement by the NYC Commission on Human Rights. The city's law is interpreted broadly and liberally to accomplish its remedial purposes, and it explicitly protects voucher holders and benefit recipients.
The Commission on Human Rights has issued guidance making clear that "no Section 8," "no vouchers," "no housing assistance programs," or any similar language in advertisements, applications, or communications constitutes per se source of income discrimination. These statements are illegal on their face and don't require additional proof of discriminatory intent.
The Commission has pursued high-profile enforcement actions, testing operations (sending matched testers—one with a voucher, one without—to document discriminatory treatment), and systemic investigations of landlords and brokers who discriminate against voucher holders. Penalties can be severe: the Commission can award unlimited compensatory damages, civil penalties up to $250,000 for willful violations, and can order policy changes, training, monitoring, and other injunctive relief.
The critical point about NYC's law is that it operates independently of state law. Even if state law protections were weakened or eliminated, NYC's source of income protections would continue to apply throughout the five boroughs. The Commission on Human Rights enforces city law regardless of what happens at the state level.
Understanding the breadth of what counts as "lawful source of income" is important because the protection extends beyond just Section 8 vouchers.
Federal housing subsidies including Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers, Public Housing, Project-Based Section 8, and other HUD programs are protected income sources. Landlords cannot refuse these subsidies or treat applicants using them less favorably than applicants paying with employment income.
Government benefits and assistance including Social Security retirement benefits, Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), public assistance, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, veterans' benefits, and child support are all lawful income sources. Landlords cannot discriminate against applicants whose income comes from these sources.
Local housing programs like CityFHEPS (NYC's rental assistance program), HASA (HIV/AIDS Services Administration) housing assistance, and other municipal or county rental assistance programs are protected sources of income. Refusing these programs is source of income discrimination.
The key principle is that if income is lawful—legally obtained, reliably paid, sufficient to cover rent—the source doesn't matter. A landlord cannot prefer employment wages over disability benefits, private income over public assistance, or non-subsidized rent over voucher-subsidized rent. As long as the total income meets the landlord's stated income requirements, source of income protections prohibit discrimination based on where that income originates.
In March 2024, the legal landscape shifted when a New York appellate court issued a decision that created confusion and uncertainty about source of income protections for Section 8 voucher holders.
The case, known as Shokrian v. State of New York, involved landlords challenging the constitutionality of New York's source of income law as applied to Section 8 vouchers. The landlords argued that being required to accept Section 8 forced them to submit to housing quality inspections conducted by public housing authorities without warrants, violating their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches.
The Second Department Appellate Division (covering Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and several counties north of NYC) agreed with the landlords. The court held that New York's source of income discrimination law is unconstitutional "to the extent it prohibits housing providers from declining to rent to prospective tenants based on their participation in the Section 8 program."
The court's reasoning focused on the Section 8 program's requirement that landlords consent to housing quality standards (HQS) inspections by public housing authorities. These inspections assess whether the unit meets federal habitability standards. The court found that requiring landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers effectively compelled them to permit these inspections, which the court characterized as warrantless administrative searches violating the Fourth Amendment.
The decision was narrow in some ways but created broad uncertainty. The court specifically addressed only the state Human Rights Law's application to Section 8. It didn't strike down the entire source of income protection—only its application to the federal Section 8 program based on the inspection requirement. The decision theoretically left intact protections for other forms of lawful income (SSI, SSDI, public assistance, local rental assistance programs without inspection requirements).
Understanding the limits of Shokrian is crucial to assessing your current protections.
The decision did not eliminate NYC's source of income protections. The court was interpreting state law, not city law. NYC Human Rights Law operates independently under the city's charter and municipal authority. Shokrian does not affect NYC's source of income protections, and the NYC Commission on Human Rights continues to enforce against source of income discrimination including Section 8 refusals within the five boroughs.
The decision did not authorize discrimination based on other lawful income sources beyond Section 8. The court's constitutional concern was specific to Section 8's inspection regime. Other income sources—SSI, SSDI, unemployment insurance, veterans' benefits, public assistance, local rental assistance programs—don't involve the same inspection requirements. Discrimination based on these sources of income should still violate state law even post-Shokrian.
The decision is not final. Shokrian was an appellate decision, not a ruling by New York's highest court (the Court of Appeals). The State appealed to the Court of Appeals, which is New York's ultimate authority on state law and constitutional questions. The Court of Appeals could reverse Shokrian, uphold it, modify it, or take any number of approaches. Until the Court of Appeals speaks, Shokrian creates uncertainty but isn't settled law statewide.
The decision doesn't apply retroactively to past discrimination. If you experienced source of income discrimination before the March 2024 Shokrian decision, that discrimination violated the law as it existed at the time. Landlords cannot use Shokrian to defend against past violations.
Shokrian has created significant confusion in the rental market and among advocates, lawyers, and enforcement agencies.
Landlords are interpreting the decision broadly, often beyond its actual holding. Many landlords and landlord attorneys are treating Shokrian as green-lighting blanket refusals of Section 8 vouchers statewide, posting "No Section 8" ads, and openly rejecting voucher holders. This interpretation goes beyond what the decision actually held and ignores NYC protections and protections for other income sources.
Enforcement agencies face challenges. The NYS Division of Human Rights and Attorney General's office have continued to describe voucher discrimination as illegal and accept complaints, but enforcement has become complicated by landlords citing Shokrian as a defense. Some cases are being stayed pending Court of Appeals review. The agencies' position is that source of income discrimination remains illegal, but they're navigating judicial resistance based on the appellate decision.
Voucher holders are experiencing increased discrimination since Shokrian. Advocates report that landlords who previously complied with source of income law (or at least avoided explicit "No Section 8" statements) have become emboldened post-Shokrian to openly refuse vouchers. This has made housing searches harder for voucher holders outside NYC.
Legal advocates are pursuing multiple strategies: filing cases in NYC where city law clearly applies, emphasizing discrimination based on disability/race/family status that correlates with voucher use (arguing source of income discrimination is a proxy for other illegal discrimination), bringing cases based on non-Section 8 income sources that Shokrian doesn't address, and awaiting Court of Appeals review that could reverse Shokrian.
Your practical rights and enforcement options depend significantly on where the rental property is located.
If you're seeking housing in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, or Staten Island, your source of income protections remain robust despite Shokrian.
NYC Human Rights Law continues to prohibit source of income discrimination including refusal of Section 8 vouchers. The Commission on Human Rights' position is clear: "No Section 8," "No vouchers," "No housing assistance," and similar statements remain illegal under city law. Shokrian addressed state law and doesn't affect the city's independent legal authority.
Enforcement through the Commission on Human Rights remains available and active. You can file a complaint with the Commission documenting the discrimination. The Commission investigates, can pursue cases on your behalf, and has broad remedial powers. The Commission has stated it will continue aggressive enforcement of source of income protections regardless of the state law uncertainty.
Legal services and fair housing organizations in NYC continue to take source of income discrimination cases based on city law. Organizations like Legal Aid Society, Legal Services NYC, Fair Housing Justice Center, and others represent voucher holders facing discrimination and pursue testing, investigation, and litigation under NYC Human Rights Law.
Landlords in NYC cannot legally rely on Shokrian to refuse Section 8 vouchers. If a NYC landlord cites Shokrian as justification for refusing your voucher, they're misapplying the decision—it doesn't override city law within city limits.
Practical advice for NYC:
If you're seeking housing in Albany, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Yonkers, or anywhere in New York State outside the five boroughs, the situation is more complex and uncertain post-Shokrian.
State law protections are in flux. Technically, the source of income protection in state Human Rights Law still exists in statute—the legislature hasn't repealed it, and it still prohibits discrimination based on lawful source of income. However, Shokrian held that as applied to Section 8, the statute is unconstitutional. This creates a confusing situation where the law exists but may not be enforceable against Section 8 refusals pending Court of Appeals review.
Some landlords are openly refusing Section 8 outside NYC, citing Shokrian, and enforcement has become difficult. If you file a complaint with the NYS Division of Human Rights about Section 8 discrimination outside NYC, the agency may accept it but enforcement may be stayed or complicated by the appellate decision.
The Attorney General's position has been that source of income discrimination remains illegal and the AG's office continues to describe voucher refusals as violations. The AG filed an amicus brief supporting appeal of Shokrian and has not conceded that Section 8 discrimination is now permissible. However, practical enforcement is limited while Shokrian stands.
Protections for non-Section 8 income sources should still apply even outside NYC and post-Shokrian. If a landlord refuses to rent to you because you receive SSI, SSDI, unemployment insurance, veterans' benefits, or other lawful income that doesn't involve Section 8's inspection regime, that discrimination should still violate state law. Shokrian's reasoning was specific to Section 8 inspections.
Local jurisdictions may have their own source of income protections. Some counties, cities, and towns in New York have enacted local human rights laws or fair housing ordinances. Check whether your locality has independent protections that would apply even if state law is compromised.
Practical advice outside NYC:
Even with Shokrian's complications, landlord statements refusing vouchers or benefits can still be evidence of illegal discrimination in several contexts.
Inside NYC, "no Section 8," "no vouchers," "no benefits," or any similar statements remain clear-cut source of income discrimination under city law, and Shokrian provides no defense.
The statements themselves violate city law. Publishing or stating a discriminatory preference is illegal even if the landlord never actually rejects an applicant. The mere advertisement "No Section 8 accepted" violates NYC Human Rights Law.
Documenting these statements is critical. Screenshot ads, save emails and text messages, record dates and times of verbal statements, and note exactly what was said. This evidence proves the violation and supports your complaint or lawsuit.
The Commission on Human Rights treats these statements seriously and has pursued enforcement actions based on discriminatory advertising alone, even without an individual victim applying and being rejected. The statements themselves cause harm by discouraging voucher holders from applying and signaling discriminatory intent.
Source of income discrimination often serves as a proxy for discrimination based on other protected characteristics, and "no vouchers" statements can be powerful evidence of these other forms of illegal discrimination.
Disability discrimination connection: A substantial percentage of voucher holders are people with disabilities who receive vouchers through disability-related housing programs or whose vouchers are funded by disability benefits (SSI, SSDI). When landlords refuse vouchers, they disproportionately exclude disabled people. If you're a voucher holder with a disability and a landlord refuses your voucher, you may have both a source of income claim (in NYC or potentially under state law) AND a disability discrimination claim under federal, state, and city law.
The landlord's "no vouchers" statement becomes evidence of disability discrimination if the effect is excluding disabled voucher holders. Courts and agencies recognize source of income discrimination as often being intertwined with disability discrimination.
Race discrimination connection: Voucher holders are disproportionately people of color, and voucher programs exist in part to address historical and ongoing racial discrimination and segregation in housing. When landlords refuse vouchers, they disproportionately exclude Black, Latinx, and other people of color. This disparate impact can constitute race discrimination.
"No Section 8" policies and statements have been challenged as violations of the federal Fair Housing Act's prohibition on race discrimination through disparate impact. Even if source of income itself isn't protected under federal law, the racial disparities created by voucher refusal can violate federal race discrimination protections.
Familial status discrimination connection: Many voucher holders are families with children. Refusing vouchers disproportionately excludes families. When voucher refusal is paired with other anti-family language or practices, it can support familial status discrimination claims.
Strategic legal approach: If you're a voucher holder who is also disabled, a person of color, or has children, your lawyer can bring discrimination claims based on these protected characteristics that are not affected by Shokrian. The landlord's refusal of your voucher becomes evidence of the underlying disability, race, or familial status bias.
Shokrian's reasoning was specific to Section 8's inspection requirements, so discrimination based on other income sources should still violate state law even post-Shokrian.
If landlords refuse SSI or SSDI (disability benefits), they're discriminating based on lawful source of income (disability benefits) in a way Shokrian doesn't address. These benefit programs don't involve the housing inspection regime that concerned the Shokrian court. Discrimination based on disability benefits should still violate state Human Rights Law.
Public assistance, unemployment insurance, veterans' benefits, workers' compensation, child support and other lawful non-employment income sources similarly don't involve Section 8's inspection requirements. Refusing applicants because their income comes from these sources should remain illegal under state law.
Local rental assistance programs vary—some may involve inspections, others may not. Discrimination against programs without inspection requirements should be distinguishable from Shokrian's logic.
Practical implication: If you receive lawful income from sources other than Section 8, emphasize this in discrimination complaints and legal claims. Your situation may be outside Shokrian's scope, giving you stronger legal standing even in the uncertain post-Shokrian environment outside NYC.
Even if courts ultimately uphold landlords' ability to refuse Section 8 specifically, "no vouchers" statements can still serve as evidence in discrimination cases based on other grounds.
Pretextual refusals: A landlord might claim to have rejected you for "legitimate" reasons like income, credit, or rental history, but if they also made "no Section 8" statements, those statements help prove the stated reasons are pretexts for discrimination. The voucher refusal reveals the real motive.
Pattern and practice evidence: Landlords with consistent "no vouchers" policies or statements reveal a pattern of discriminatory conduct. This pattern evidence strengthens individual cases and supports systemic enforcement actions by agencies.
If you encounter source of income discrimination, these strategic actions protect your rights and build your case.
The foundation of any discrimination case is solid documentation of what happened.
Screenshot or save discriminatory advertisements if you see "No Section 8," "No vouchers," "No housing assistance programs," "Must have employment income," "No government benefits," or similar language in rental listings. Capture:
Save all communications where landlords or brokers reference your voucher or benefits:
Create a detailed timeline and narrative:
Document your qualifications:
This documentation proves: (1) discrimination occurred, (2) it was based on source of income, (3) you were otherwise qualified, (4) the only issue was the landlord's illegal preference against vouchers.
If in NYC, explicitly invoke city law: "I am informing you that refusing to rent to me because I have a Section 8 voucher violates the New York City Human Rights Law, which prohibits source of income discrimination. I am documenting this refusal and will file a complaint with the NYC Commission on Human Rights if you continue to discriminate."
This puts the landlord on notice of the specific law they're violating and signals you know your rights and will enforce them.
If outside NYC, still assert state law and other protections: "Refusing my voucher may violate New York State Human Rights Law's prohibition on source of income discrimination. Additionally, because I [am disabled / am a person of color / have children], your refusal may constitute disability/race/familial status discrimination under federal and state fair housing law."
Reference both source of income and any other protected characteristics that apply to you, as the other characteristics aren't subject to Shokrian uncertainty.
Don't just accept the discrimination—report it to enforcement agencies.
In NYC:
Outside NYC:
Federal HUD complaint:
You don't have to navigate this alone—legal help is available.
NYC organizations:
Statewide organizations:
Tell them: "I have a Section 8 voucher [or other benefits] and was refused housing based on my source of income. I have documentation of the discrimination. I need help understanding my rights post-Shokrian and filing complaints or pursuing legal action."
These organizations can:
Fair housing organizations can conduct testing to prove discrimination.
Testing involves sending matched pairs of applicants (testers) to the same landlord—one with a voucher, one without, but otherwise similar qualifications. If the voucher tester is rejected while the non-voucher tester is accepted, that's powerful proof of source of income discrimination.
Pattern evidence from multiple voucher holders experiencing discrimination from the same landlord strengthens cases and supports systemic enforcement.
If you've experienced discrimination, contact fair housing organizations about whether they can test the landlord or coordinate with other voucher holders who've been discriminated against to build a pattern case.
"No Section 8" and "no vouchers" statements reflect discrimination against people based on how they pay rent, not whether they can pay rent.
In NYC, source of income discrimination including Section 8 refusal remains clearly illegal under city law, and enforcement continues.
Outside NYC, the law is in flux post-Shokrian, but protections may still exist for non-Section 8 income sources and through disability/race/family status claims.
Landlords cannot legally refuse vouchers or benefits in NYC, and questionable refusals outside NYC should still be challenged.
Document discrimination meticulously. Assert your rights. File complaints. Get legal help.
Don't let landlords use Shokrian confusion to avoid accountability for discrimination.
Source of income discrimination hurts disabled people, people of color, families, and other vulnerable communities—fight it.
