U.S. Department
of Justice
Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases
Masjid Sadar Inc & Shameer Properties LLC v Borough of Sayreville et al (D.N.J.
On July 13, 2026, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Masjid Sadar, Inc. & Shameer Properties, LLC v. Borough of Sayreville, New Jersey, et al. (D.N.J.), regarding RLUIPA’s Equal Terms provision. Plaintiffs are seeking to build a mosque in the Borough of Sayreville for its growing Muslim community. The complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction allege, among other claims, that Sayreville’s Zoning Code violates the Equal Terms provision, which prohibits zoning regulations that treat religious and nonreligious land uses unequally, without a regulatory justification. In its Statement of Interest, the United States argues that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Equal Terms claim, because the Borough’s Zoning Code violates the Equal Terms provision on its face, for two reasons. First, the Code requires houses of worship to obtain discretionary conditional use permits, while secular assemblies are permitted as of right. Second, the Zoning Code subjects houses of worship to more stringent dimensional requirements than nonreligious assembly uses, without a reason for doing so.
Flinn v City of Evanston (N.D. Ill.)
On June 16, 2026, the United States moved to intervene in Flinn v. Evanston (N.D. Ill.), a lawsuit challenging a reparations program by the City of Evanston, Illinois, that provides cash payments and financial assistance for housing solely to black persons and their descendants and not to similarly situated persons of other races. The United States’ proposed complaint in intervention alleges that the city’s actions violate the Equal Protection Cause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fair Housing Act.
Press Release - 6/16/2026
United States v New Mexico Supreme Court and New Mexico Board of Bar Examiners (D. NM.)
On June 11, 2026, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. New Mexico Supreme Court and New Mexico Board of Bar Examiners (D. N.M.) alleging that the New Mexico Supreme Court and the New Mexico Board of Bar Examiners have refused to recognize the out-of-state law licenses of qualifying military spouses and servicemembers as valid in accordance with the licensing portability provision in the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), 50 U.S.C. § 4025a.
Doe v. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Worcester Inc. d/b/a Crozier House et al (D. Mass.)
On June 2, 2026, the United States filed a statement of interest in Doe v. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Worcester, Inc. d/b/a Crozier House, et al. (D. Mass.), a private lawsuit alleging sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of the Fair Housing Act, among other claims. Some of the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Fair Housing Act claim. The United States’ statement of interest clarifies the legal standards for sexual harassment and retaliation claims under the Fair Housing Act, including that: (1) in some circumstances, individuals who knew or should have known about a discriminatory housing practice and failed to take action to stop it can be held directly liable, (2) retaliating against someone for exercising or enjoying their fair housing rights can violate Section 3617, and (3) constructive eviction is not required to plead a Section 3604(a) claim.
Vehicle Management Solutions Inc.
On May 28, 2026, the United States reached a settlement resolving allegations that Vehicle Management Solutions, Inc. (VMS), a towing company based in San Antonio, Texas, violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by selling, auctioning or otherwise disposing of approximately 93 vehicles owned by SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. Under the settlement, VMS will pay $220,000 to compensate the servicemembers and a $60,000 civil penalty to the United States. The settlement also requires VMS to revise its policies, procedures, and training materials to prevent future SCRA violations.
Rental Marketing Solutions, LLC
On May 13, 2026, the United States reached a settlement resolving allegations that Rental Marketing Solutions, LLC (RMS), a property management company based in St. Petersburg, Florida, violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by filing a false affidavit regarding military service and obtaining an unlawful default eviction judgment against an active-duty sailor in the Navy. As part of the settlement, RMS will pay $60,000 in compensation to the servicemember and for ten years of credit monitoring for him. The settlement also requires RMS to pay a $6,000 civil penalty and maintain SCRA policies and procedures to avoid committing future violations.
ADT LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services
On April 14, 2026, the United States reached a settlement resolving allegations that ADT, LLC, the largest home security services provider in the United States, violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by imposing a 30-day notice requirement on 3,400 servicemembers who terminated their home security contracts early under the SCRA. As part of the settlement, ADT will pay $1,260,000 to compensate the servicemembers and a $79,380 civil penalty to the United States. The settlement also requires ADT to revise its policies, procedures, and training materials to prevent future SCRA violations.
Georgia Professional Licensing Boards
On March 31, 2026, the United States reached a settlement agreement resolving allegations that forty-two Georgia Professional Licensing Boards violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by failing to recognize the out-of-state professional licenses of servicemembers and their spouses. This settlement is the first of its kind and will provide up to $3 million in compensation to servicemembers and military spouses whose applications for licensure were improperly denied or delayed. The settlement also requires the Georgia Boards to adopt new policies that comply with the SCRA and provide a streamlined application process for servicemembers and military spouses who are already licensed in another state.
United States v S & K Towing, Inc (C.D. Cal.)
On July 14, 2026, the United States entered into a settlement agreement in United States v. S & K Towing, Inc. (C.D. Cal.). The complaint, which was filed on March 25, 2026, alleges that, between August 28, 2020, and April 15, 2025, a towing company headquartered in San Clemente, California violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by auctioning or otherwise disposing of as many as 148 vehicles owned by SCRA-protected servicemembers without obtaining court orders. Under the settlement, S & K Towing will pay $160,000 to compensate servicemembers. Additionally, if S & K Towing ever reenters the business of towing or storing vehicles, it will adopt policies, procedures, and training materials to prevent future SCRA violations.
Press Release - 7/14/2026
Press Release - 3/25/2026
United States v. Town of Beekman (S.D.N.Y.)
On March 5, 2026, the United States Attorney’s Office filed a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice complaint in United States v. Town of Beekman (S.D.N.Y.). In the complaint, the United States alleges the Town engaged in disability discrimination by failing to grant a reasonable accommodation to Bunkhouse Recovery Ranch NY, a group home for persons in recovery from drug or alcohol addiction. The Town’s zoning decisions, including a failure to grant a special use permit, have prevented Bunkhouse from operating.
Settlement Agreement - CarMax Inc
On February 23, 2026, CarMax, Inc. agreed to a settlement resolving allegations that it violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by repossessing 28 vehicles owned by SCRA-protected servicemembers without obtaining court orders. As part of the settlement, CarMax must pay at least $420,000 to compensate servicemembers and a $79,380 civil penalty to the United States. The settlement also requires CarMax to revise its policies, procedures, and training materials to prevent future SCRA violations.
United States v Borough of Kingston (M.D. Pa.)
On February 6, 2026, the District Court entered a consent order to resolve the claims in United States v. Borough of Kingston (M.D. Pa.). The complaint, filed February 4, 2026, alleges that the Borough of Kingston (“Kingston”) violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by enacting and enforcing a 2023 zoning ordinance that treats religious land uses worse than comparable secular uses and unreasonably limit religious land use. Kingston’s zoning ordinance requires that places of worship obtain discretionary special exception use permits, while comparable nonreligious assembly uses are permitted as of right. The ordinance also restricts places of worship to one-acre or more parcels, while no acreage restriction is placed on comparable nonreligious assembly uses. As a result of these restrictions, Kingston’s Orthodox Jewish Chabad community has struggled to find sufficient suitable places for prayer, religious study, religious schools, and mikvahs (ritual baths). The consent order requires Kingston to revise its zoning ordinance to allow places of worship and religious schools as a permitted use in commercial districts and as a special use in residential districts; eliminate the acreage requirements for places of worship and religious schools; and treat places of worship on comparable terms to nonreligious places of assembly with respect to other zoning concerns like parking and landscaping. The consent order also requires Kingston to train its officials and employees on RLUIPA’s requirements, establish a procedure for receiving and resolving RLUIPA complaints, and undertake other injunctive relief.