The Justice Department is urging cities to repeal crime-free housing laws because they say they “unfairly punish communities of color.”

The Biden administration is threatening — and has sued — local governments and law enforcement agencies across the country that have taken measures to curb an epidemic of crime, drugs, and gang violence in rental housing, arguing that those measures “unfairly punish communities of color.” The popular laws enacted by thousands of cities across the country are commonly known as “crime-free” and “nuisance-free” programs. They restrict housing allocation based on criminal and arrest records and penalize landlords and tenants with excessive calls to police and emergency services or people involved in criminal activity. To improve living conditions in predominantly low-income rental housing, 2,000 cities in 48 states have adopted “crime-free” and “nuisance-free” policies, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ). In recent years, the ministry has challenged many of these measures in court on the grounds that they are discriminatory and therefore violate federal law.

“Even when these programs are well-intentioned, they can destroy lives, drive families into homelessness, and lead to the loss of jobs, schooling, and opportunities for people who are disproportionately low-income people of color — all in violation of federal law,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke, who heads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “These programs can also deter people with disabilities and their loved ones from seeking help during a mental health crisis and prevent victims of domestic violence from seeking the protection they desperately need.” The lifelong civil rights attorney, who has dedicated her career to “fighting discrimination against African Americans and other marginalized communities,” assures that the agency will continue to fight what she calls “discriminatory and unlawful housing programs across the country,” while supporting local government and police efforts to prevent violent crime. Clarke made these comments a few days ago when the Justice Department issued stern warnings to cities with crime-fighting and anti-nuisance measures that they were violating federal housing protections.

In a lengthy document warning local governments and their law enforcement agencies against measures designed to curb crime in rental housing, the Justice Department writes that it has successfully challenged many of these measures and forced “a number of municipalities” to repeal their measures. The administration also reminds those still enforcing its anti-crime and harassment measures that “states from California to Iowa have passed laws prohibiting these measures.” The agency essentially threatens local enforcers of anti-crime and harassment measures by declaring that they are violating four federal laws — the Fair Housing Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Violence Against Women Act. The Justice Department generously offers to work with local police and governments to reverse, or at least loosen, hard-line crime-fighting policies that the left largely opposes.

In its widely circulated warning addressed to “Dear Colleagues,” the agency cites examples of how it has successfully challenged laws across the country, apparently an intimidation tactic since it can be daunting — and financially impossible — for local governments to take on the federal government and its vast resources. “Remedies resulting from violations of these four laws include financial compensation (including damages, civil penalties, and attorney fees), the possible termination of federal funding, and injunctions (including the possible repeal of a program and judicial oversight),” the Justice Department’s warning to local governments states, adding that “recent settlements have required law enforcement agencies and local governments to pay millions of dollars in financial compensation and repeal or revise their programs.” The agency cites numerous cases with extensive background information to illustrate how it flexed its muscles to eliminate tough-on-crime housing policies nationwide.

Examples include Hesperia, California, which repealed its policy and paid nearly $1 million in “compensation” after the government sued the Southern California desert city of about 100,000 residents; Faribault, Minnesota, paid nearly $700,000 to settle its case in federal court and is prohibited from penalizing criminal records that private landlords consider when screening their tenants; Bedford, Ohio, repealed its laws after paying out $350,000 in monetary compensation; Hemet, California, repealed its measures and was forced to set up a $200,000 recovery fund; Anoka, Minnesota, made “significant program changes” and paid $175,000 to settle with the Justice Department.