Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
This bill creates an Eviction Right to Counsel Fund at HUD, authorizing $100 million per year for fiscal years 2026–2030 to provide grants to States, local governments, and Indian Tribal governments that enact or are fiscally responsible for implementing "right to counsel" laws. A "covered individual" is defined as a tenant with income at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty line; "covered proceedings" include eviction cases (or equivalent ejectment) and termination of housing subsidies.
Role of federal funding: left sees it as necessary to ensure access to justice; right sees it as unwanted federal expansion and fiscal cost.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear administrative framework—a Treasury fund with specified appropriations and a HUD-administered grant program—to financially support jurisdictions enacting or implementing right to counsel laws, but it relies heavily on delegated rulemaking for operational details and contains limited accountability and anti-abuse provisions.
This bill creates an Eviction Right to Counsel Fund at HUD, authorizing $100 million per year for fiscal years 2026–2030 to provide grants to States, local governments, and Indian Tribal governments that enact or are fiscally responsible for implementing "right to counsel" laws.
A "covered individual" is defined as a tenant with income at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty line; "covered proceedings" include eviction cases (or equivalent ejectment) and termination of housing subsidies.
Eligible entities must apply and certify they have enacted or are implementing right-to-counsel legislation; the Secretary of HUD will prioritize applicants with certain tenant-protective laws (e.g., limiting eviction causes, minimum notice periods, eviction diversion programs, emergency rental assistance) or those that use funds to recruit and train attorneys.
On content alone, the bill has plausible paths to enactment because it is focused, time‑limited, fiscally modest relative to large entitlement changes, and structured as voluntary grants (which often win broader support). However, it advances a policy with moderate ideological salience (tenant right to counsel) that draws clear stakeholder opposition, and it conditions federal funds on state legislative action—reducing automatic uptake. Passage is plausible if packaged with other housing or appropriations measures or if it attracts bipartisan sponsors, but as a standalone bill it faces meaningful hurdles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear administrative framework—a Treasury fund with specified appropriations and a HUD-administered grant program—to financially support jurisdictions enacting or implementing right to counsel laws, but it relies heavily on delegated rulemaking for operational details and contains limited accountability and anti-abuse provisions.
Role of federal funding: left sees it as necessary to ensure access to justice; right sees it as unwanted federal expansion and fiscal cost.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Role of federal funding: left sees it as necessary to ensure access to justice; right sees it as unwanted federal expansion and fiscal cost.
This persona is likely to view the bill favorably as a targeted federal investment to expand legal representation for low-income tenants facing eviction.
They will see it as promoting procedural fairness, reducing displacement and homelessness, and addressing racial and economic inequities in housing outcomes.
They expect the funding for attorney recruitment and training, along with priority criteria for jurisdictions with tenant protections, to meaningfully support implementation.
This persona will likely be cautiously supportive but want to see evidence of cost-effectiveness, clear implementation plans, and safeguards against unintended consequences.
They will appreciate that the bill uses grants rather than federal mandates and prioritizes jurisdictions with existing tenant protections and training plans.
However, they will be concerned about fiscal costs, administrative complexity, and how outcomes will be measured.
This persona is likely to be skeptical or opposed, viewing the bill as another example of federal spending that incentivizes local policy shifts and expands government involvement in landlord-tenant relations.
They will question whether taxpayer dollars should fund legal representation that could increase litigation, interfere with property owners' rights, or discourage landlords from renting to lower-income tenants.
They may accept narrow, evidence-based pilot programs but will oppose broad, multi-year funding without strict limits, state flexibility, or matching requirements.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone, the bill has plausible paths to enactment because it is focused, time‑limited, fiscally modest relative to large entitlement changes, and structured as voluntary grants (which often win broader support). However, it advances a policy with moderate ideological salience (tenant right to counsel) that draws clear stakeholder opposition, and it conditions federal funds on state legislative action—reducing automatic uptake. Passage is plausible if packaged with other housing or appropriations measures or if it attracts bipartisan sponsors, but as a standalone bill it faces meaningful hurdles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Role of federal funding: left sees it as necessary to ensure access to justice; right sees it as unwanted federal expansion and fiscal cost.
On content alone, the bill has plausible paths to enactment because it is focused, time‑limited, fiscally modest relative to large entitlem…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear administrative framework—a Treasury fund with specified appropriations and a HUD-administered grant program—to financially support jurisdictions e…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.