S-5535-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Sponsored by Michael Bennet (D-CO)
What it does
The bill would require HUD to build a national database of court-ordered, administrative, and illegal (self-help) evictions within 1 year, with State Attorneys General required to submit court eviction data each year. It would authorize Justice Department grants (with a non-federal match) for eviction diversion programs and landlord-tenant community courts, HUD grants to local governments and nonprofits to collect illegal-eviction data, and a 16-member HUD advisory committee. It would also authorize $3 billion per year for fiscal years 2027 through 2031 for a HUD competitive grant program giving short-term rent and utility aid to very low-income households; the database data could not be used to decide program eligibility, and other limits apply.
Who benefits
Tenants facing eviction, especially very low-income households and families with children, who could receive short-term rent and utility aid, diversion services, and social service referrals. Landlords, including small landlords, who may get less costly alternatives to full eviction cases and back-rent payments through assistance. Researchers, HUD, and local officials who would gain standardized national data. Courts and nonprofits that could receive grant funding, and tribal governments through a set-aside.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers, since the bill authorizes $3 billion annually for rent aid plus unspecified sums for other grants. State Attorneys General and court clerks, who would bear new data-collection and submission duties and costs. State and local governments needing to raise a dollar-for-dollar match for diversion grants. Landlords could face added reporting exposure and, in diversion programs, possible delays. Tenants and landlords named in the database could face privacy risks despite safeguards, and eviction cases involving local nuisance ordinances would be flagged.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that eviction policy is hampered by inconsistent data, and that a single national database would let policymakers see causes and patterns. They contend that diversion courts and short-term emergency aid are cheaper than full evictions, and the bill's own text bars use of the data for program eligibility, requires privacy safeguards, and includes landlords on the advisory committee and in grant applications.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a federal database containing tenant names, race, disability status, and addresses creates privacy and misuse risks, and imposes unfunded reporting duties on state Attorneys General and court clerks. They contend that $3 billion annually in rent aid is costly, may not address underlying rent and supply problems, and that diversion programs, despite the bill's text, could slow landlords' access to possession of their property.
Constitutional context
Congress relies on its Spending Clause power (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1) to attach grant conditions, and South Dakota v. Dole (1987) governs how far such conditions may go. Requiring state Attorneys General to submit data raises Tenth Amendment anti-commandeering questions under Printz v. United States (1997), and eviction law is traditionally a state matter; the database also raises privacy concerns of the kind addressed in Whalen v. Roe (1977).
Checks and balances
The executive branch (HUD and the Justice Department) gains grant-making, data, and rulemaking authority, checked by congressional appropriations, required public reports, and the Banking Committee evaluation report, while states retain control of their own eviction courts.
Historical precedent
Congress created temporary federal emergency rental assistance in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, which this bill's tribal set-aside and program design partly reference.