HR-10225-119
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Sponsored by Tim Burchett (R-TN)
What it does
This bill would prohibit federal agencies from using federal funds to provide housing assistance—including rental aid, vouchers, mortgage assistance, utility aid, hotel/motel stays, and housing counseling services—to individuals unlawfully present in the United States. It requires agencies to enforce compliance through certifications, monitoring, civil penalties, and periods of ineligibility for violators, with exceptions for immigration and criminal law enforcement activities.
Who benefits
Federal agencies and grant recipients seeking clearer eligibility rules; taxpayers who support restricting federal housing spending to citizens and lawfully present individuals; advocates of stricter immigration enforcement who argue this closes a funding gap in existing programs.
Who is hurt
Unauthorized immigrants who currently receive or might seek housing assistance, including those facing homelessness, domestic violence survivors in shelters, and families with US-citizen children who may live in mixed-status households. Nonprofit housing providers and shelters that serve mixed-status populations would face new certification and compliance burdens, and could lose funding or face penalties for inadvertent violations. State and local housing agencies administering HUD programs would bear administrative costs for verification systems.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that federal housing assistance programs already face long waiting lists for citizens and lawful residents, and that federal dollars should not go to individuals without legal status while eligible families wait years for aid. They contend the bill simply codifies and strengthens existing restrictions under laws like the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, closing loopholes that allow indirect funding through emergency and stabilization services.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that most federal housing programs already restrict eligibility to citizens and qualified immigrants, so this bill mainly adds costly certification and enforcement burdens on shelters and nonprofits serving vulnerable mixed-status families, including US-citizen children. They contend the broad definition of "covered housing assistance," extending to emergency shelter and eviction prevention, could deter organizations from serving anyone without documentation verification, potentially increasing homelessness and public health risks during crises like domestic violence or natural disasters.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority under the Naturalization Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause to condition federal benefits on immigration status, an authority the Supreme Court has generally upheld as part of the federal government's plenary power over immigration, as recognized in cases like Arizona v. United States (2012). Due process protections under the Fifth Amendment may be implicated if enforcement mechanisms, such as penalties or ineligibility periods, are applied to recipients without adequate notice or hearing.
Checks and balances
Congress would set the funding restriction and enforcement framework, while executive agencies gain authority to monitor, certify, and penalize recipients, with courts available to review agency enforcement actions and any due process claims.
Historical precedent
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 similarly restricted federal public benefits, including some housing assistance, for unauthorized immigrants and non-qualified aliens.