U.S. Department
of Justice
Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases
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.
United States v Hankins (E.D. Mo.)
On January 28, 2026, the parties executed a settlement agreement resolving the claims against the defendants in United States v. Housing Authority of the City of Bloomfield and Eddie Joe Hankins (E.D. Mo.). The United States’ complaint, which was filed on September 30, 2025, alleges that Eddie Joe Hankins sexually harassed a female housing applicant. The United States’ lawsuit also alleges that the Housing Authority of the City of Bloomfield is vicariously liable for the sexual harassment committed by Hankins as their agent. In the settlement agreement, the defendants are required to pay $35,000 to the female housing applicant who was harmed by Hankins’ sexual harassment. The settlement agreement also permanently bars Hankins from contacting the tenant harmed by his harassment and from managing residential rental properties. The settlement agreement also requires the Housing Authority to implement a sexual harassment policy for its rental properties and provide fair housing training for its employees. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
United States v William Aaron Asper (E.D. Mich.)
On December 2, 2025, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. William Aaron Asper (E.D. Mich.). The complaint alleges that defendant Asper discriminated because of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by sexually harassing female tenants of rental properties that he owned or managed. The complaint also names as defendants the William Aaron Asper Irrevocable Living Trust dated August 1, 2005, and REPSA Enterprises, LLC, which owned the rental properties during at least part of the time that Asper sexually harassed female tenants there.
United States v Thomas Ray Kelso and Avatar Investments (E.D. Ark.)
On November 18, 2025, the United States filed a pattern or practice complaint in United States v. Thomas Ray Kelso and Avatar Investments LLC (E.D. AR). The complaint alleges that defendant Kelso discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by engaging in sexual harassment of female tenants of rental properties that he owned and managed. The complaint also names as defendant Avatar Investments LLC, which owned the rental properties during Kelso’s management and sexual harassment of female tenants.
Press Release - 11/18/2025
United States v Housing Authority City of Bloomfield (E.D. MO.)
On September 30, 2025, the United States filed an “election” complaint in United States v. Housing Authority of the City of Bloomfield and Eddie Joe Hankins (E.D. Mo.). The complaint alleges that the defendants discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). Specifically, the complaint alleges that Eddie Joe Hankins sexually harassed a female housing applicant. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
New City Funding Corp.
On September 29, 2025, New City Funding Corp. agreed to a settlement resolving allegations that it violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by repossessing vehicles owned by SCRA-protected without obtaining court orders. As part of the settlement, New City must pay at least $60,000 to compensate servicemembers and pay a $60,000 civil penalty to the United States. The settlement also requires New City to revise its policies and training to avoid future SCRA violations.
Press Release - 9/29/2025
United States v. Fox, et al. (W.D. Okla.)
On August 18, 2025, the United States filed an “election” complaint in United States v. Fox, et al. (W.D. Okla.) The complaint alleges that the defendants discriminated on the basis of familial status in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by refusing to rent to the complainant upon learning that she would be living with her then-three-year-old son. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
Yeshiva Ohr Shraga Veretzky v. Town of Highland Zoning Board of Appeals and Town of Highland
On July 29, 2025, the Justice Department filed a statement of interest in Yeshiva Ohr Shraga Veretzky v. Town of Highland Zoning Board of Appeals et al., (S.D.N.Y.) a private lawsuit alleging that the Zoning Board of Appeals and Town violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) by making a final determination that prevented the Orthodox Jewish Yeshiva from engaging in its proposed educational religious use. The Zoning Board of Appeals and Town had concluded that the Yeshiva’s educational religious use was really a “summer camp,” a use not permitted in the Town. This determination prevented the Yeshiva from developing its proposed religious use anywhere in the Town. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss contending that the plaintiff’s claims are not “prudentially ripe,” i.e., the claims are not ready to be heard by the Court, because the plaintiff had not sought a use variance from the Town. The department’s statement of interest refutes this contention, explaining that the plaintiff’s claims are ripe because the Board of Appeals made a final determination that plaintiff’s proposed religious use was not allowed anywhere in the Town and that in such a situation, the Yeshiva was not required to apply for a variance before seeking relief under RLUIPA.
United States v. David Jones, et al. (E.D. Wis.)
On July 24, 2025, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin filed an “election” complaint in United States v. David Jones, et al. (E.D. Wis.) The complaint alleges that the Defendant subjected his former tenant to severe, pervasive, and unwelcome sexual harassment, and evicted her for complaining about his conduct, in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint also names as a defendant D Jones Properties LLC, which owned the property where the alleged violations occurred. The case was referred to the Department of Justice after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, completed an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
Paul D Etienne v Robert Ferguson
On October 14, 2025, based on a stipulated motion by the parties, the Court entered a permanent injunction in Etienne v. Ferguson/United States v. State of Washington (W.D. Wash.), barring enforcement of Senate Bill 5375 law as applied to information disclosed solely in the Catholic Sacrament of Confession and/or other privileged communications made to members of the clergy or Christian Science practitioners. The law amended Washington’s mandatory reporting law for child abuse and neglect to include Catholic priests as mandatory reporters. This would have required priests to reveal information they hear in Confession, which would result in their automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church. On July 15, 2025, the United States filed a complaint in intervention alleging that the State violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by passing this law.
United States v Greystar Management Services, LLC
On June 24, 2025, Greystar Management Services, LLC agreed to a settlement resolving allegations that it violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by imposing early termination charges on servicemembers who terminated their residential leases early because they had received military relocation orders, including by using software that automatically imposed early termination charges without regard to military status. As part of the settlement, Greystar must set aside $1.35 million to compensate servicemembers, including triple damages to servicemembers who paid Greystar’s early termination charges, and a $77,370 civil penalty to the United States. The settlement also requires Greystar to revise its policies to ensure that eligible military servicemembers can end their residential leases without incurring illegal early termination charges.
United States v JWB Property Management LLC
On June 19, 2025, JWB Property Management LLC dba JWB Rental Homes agreed to a settlement resolving allegations that JWB violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by imposing early termination charges on six servicemembers who terminated their residential leases early because they had received military relocation orders. As part of the settlement, JWB will pay $39,168.50 in compensation to servicemembers and a $25,000 civil penalty to the United States. The settlement also requires JWB to revise its policies to ensure that eligible servicemembers can end their leases without incurring illegal early termination charges.