By: Birikti Kahsai, Research Associate
It is no secret that America is facing a housing crisis. From a severe shortage of units to skyrocketing prices, renters and buyers alike are bearing the brunt of a deficit of affordable, accessible housing. In addressing this crisis, federal legislation such as the bipartisan 21st Century Road to Housing Act has sought to accelerate home construction through measures ranging from regulatory reform to government grants.[1] While incentivizing the construction of more affordable units is critical, ensuring safe, habitable, and accessible housing requires something else: strengthened national tenant protections and enforcement. Connecticut’s existing laws can serve as a valuable case study of the forms of protection that should be rolled out at the national level.
Tenant protections refer to laws, regulations, and policies that establish a baseline of rights and protections for renters and other lawful occupants. Common focuses include ensuring compliance with habitability standards, preventing discriminatory practices and retaliation, guaranteeing tenant privacy, and regulating eviction proceedings and rent increases. While key legislation, such as the Fair Housing Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act, enshrines anti-discrimination and safety protections at the national level, a significant share of protection is determined at the state or local level. The result is a fragmented national landscape, with tenants having differing degrees of enshrined rights based on their location, a condition further compounded by the fact that legislation such as the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (URLTA), [2] and its revised version, [3] intended to standardize this landscape, have not been universally adopted.
Consider source-of-income (SOI) discrimination. While the Fair Housing Act protects against identity-based discrimination, it does not prevent landlords from discriminating against renters based on their source of income. As a result, renters relying on non-wage income or government assistance programs such as housing vouchers may be denied the opportunity to rent, not based on ability to pay, but on the source of payment. Disproportionately impacting renters who are low-income, minority, disabled, or senior citizens, only around 57% of renters are covered by SOI discrimination protections with varying degrees of effectiveness.[4] Adding to the obstacles, some states, including Florida and Texas, have enacted preemptive bans on local adoption of SOI protections.[5] While congressional legislation, such as the recently reintroduced Fair Housing Improvement Act, has sought to prohibit SOI discrimination at the federal level, it has yet to pass.[6]
In addition to the lack of nationally standardized comprehensive protections, inadequate enforcement of existing protections is an equally significant issue. Consider habitability standards. In the 1970 landmark case Javins v. First National Realty Corp.,[7] the D.C circuit court first recognized the implied warranty of habitability, a doctrine stipulating that landlords were required to ensure that their residential properties were in a condition “safe and fit for human habitation.”[8] Recognized in a majority of jurisdictions, the implied warranty of habitability, in conjunction with a patchwork of other federal, state, and local legislation and codes, serves as the foundation for guarantees of a basic standard of housing quality and condition. Despite their existence, barriers such as a lack of information, fears of retaliation, and inadequate government and administrative capacity have contributed to an ongoing enforcement crisis. Those disproportionately vulnerable to poor conditions remain low-income renters, public housing residents, and others.[9]
In response to pervasive issues with the tenants’ protections landscape, groups such as the National Low Income Housing Coalition have issued proposals, including the National Tenants Bill of Rights.[10] These efforts reframe the national conversation from protections to rights, emphasizing housing as a fundamental entitlement rather than a conditional safeguard. Including both recommendations for national and more localized reform, such proposals underscore the need for a more unified and enforceable baseline of tenant protections. Looking at state-specific legislation can also serve as a valuable tool for both considering and measuring the efficacy of a host of tenant protections. Connecticut serves as a particularly significant case study.
A number of protections and statewide initiatives have made Connecticut a leader in the push for comprehensive tenets protections. Among other measures, Connecticut has outlawed source-of-income discrimination,[11] established statutory caps on security deposits (no more than two months’ rent),[12] enacted eviction-sealing legislation,[13] and safeguarded tenants’ rights to unionize.[14] Two key components of Connecticut’s housing protections are exemplary: its statewide Right to Counsel program and Fair Rent Commissions.
In 2021, the Connecticut legislature passed Public Act No. 21-34, officially creating a statewide Right to Counsel Program. This bill entitles income-eligible tenants, defined as those making 80% or less of the area median income or receiving specific public assistance, to free legal representation in evictions and matters regarding the loss of housing subsidies.[15] By improving the access of low-income renters to legal representation, this act aimed to correct a critical power imbalance: landlord-tenant disparities in rates of legal representation. Nationally, of the roughly 7.6 million Americans facing eviction, 90% to 96% of tenants lack legal representation.[16] In comparison, anywhere from 83% to 90% of landlords have legal representation.[17] Disproportionately impacting low-income and minority renters,[18] this act was both a critical intervention and highly effective. In its first year alone (2022), 71% of clients who wanted to prevent an involuntary move achieved that goal, and 76% of those seeking to avoid an eviction record were successful.[19]
Another example is Fair Rent Commissions. Authorized in Connecticut since 1969,[20]22 these municipal boards have the power to intervene and restrict rent increases found to be “so excessive as to be harsh and unconscionable”.[21] They are critical to protecting tenants from excessive rent spikes. Under Public Act No. 22-30,[22] municipalities with populations exceeding 25,000 were initially required to establish such commissions by July 2023. This requirement was later expanded to include municipalities with populations over 15,000, raising the percentage of state residents covered from 65% to 83%.[23]
Many such state and local interventions recognize the need to protect tenants and ensure housing security for the most vulnerable. It is clear that, without stronger federal standards and enforcement, expanding supply alone cannot guarantee safe, equitable housing. Adopting state-level best practices and expert recommendations is essential for a more effective approach.
Endnotes
[1] U.S. Congress, House, Housing for the 21st Century Act, H.R. 6644, 119th Cong. (2025–2026), https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/6644/text
[2] National Center for Healthy Housing, Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (URLTA) (Washington, DC: National Center for Healthy Housing), PDF, https://nchh.org/resource-library/Uniform%20Law%20Commission%20-%20URLTA.pdf
[3] Uniform Law Commission, “Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act,” accessed March 28, 2026, https://www.uniformlaws.org/committees/community-home?communitykey=e
9cd20a1-b939-4265-9f1e-3a47a538d495.
[4] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Discrimination Against Voucher Holders and the Laws to Prevent It,” Cityscape 26, no. 2 (2024), https://ww
w.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscape/vol26num2/ch7.pdf
[5] Poverty & Race Research Action Council, “Appendix B: State, Local, and Federal Laws Barring Source of Income Discrimination” (Washington, DC: Poverty & Race Research Action Council, 2013; revised March 2026), https://www.prrac.org/pdf/AppendixB.pdf
[6] U.S. Congress, Senate, Fair Housing Improvement Act of 2025, S. 2827, 119th Cong. (2025–2026), https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/2827/text
[7] Javins v. First National Realty Corp., 428 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1970), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/428/1071/172969/
[8] Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, “Implied Warranty of Habitability,” Wex Legal Dictionary (last reviewed September 2025), https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/implie
[9] James Krieger and Donna L. Higgins, “Housing and Health: Time Again for Public Health Action,” American Journal of Public Health 92, no. 5 (May 2002): 758–768, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447157/
[10] National Low Income Housing Coalition, National Housing Law Project, and Tenant Union Federation, National Tenants Bill of Rights (Washington, DC: National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2024), https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/TBOR-Final.pdf
[11] United Way of Connecticut, Housing Discrimination Based on Lawful Source of Income, 211 Connecticut, https://www.211ct.org/search/17328137#:~:text=In%20Conn
[12] State of Connecticut Department of Banking, Rental Security Deposits: Key Issues and Guidance for Connecticut Landlords and Tenants, CT.gov, https://portal.ct.gov/dob/rent
al-security-deposits/rental-security-deposits/rental-security-deposits
[13] National Low Income Housing Coalition, New Tenant Protections Go into Effect in Connecticut, Including Limits to Late Charges and Application Fees (Oct. 10, 2023), https://n
[14] Connecticut Fair Housing Center, Tenant Rights, https://ctfairhousing.
[15] Connecticut General Assembly, Public Act No. 21‑34: An Act Concerning the Right to Counsel in Eviction Proceedings, the Validity of Inland Wetlands Permits in Relation to Certain Other Land Use Approvals, and Extending the Time of Expiration of Certain Land Use Permits, Public Act 21‑34 (2021), https://www.cga.ct.gov/2021/ACT/PA/PDF/2021PA-
[16] Heidi Schultheis and Caitlin Rooney, A Right to Counsel Is a Right to a Fighting Chance: The Importance of Legal Representation in Eviction Proceedings (Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, October 2, 2019), https://www.americanprogress.org/article/right-
counsel-right-fighting-chance/; Benfer, Emily A., Peter Hepburn, Valerie Nazarro, Leah Robinson, Jamila Michener, and Danya E. Keene. Disrupting the Eviction System: Tenant Right to Counsel. The Eviction Lab, April 25, 2025. https://evictionlab.org/disrupting-the-eviction-system/
[17] Benfer, Emily A., Peter Hepburn, Valerie Nazarro, Leah Robinson, Jamila Michener, and Danya E. Keene. Disrupting the Eviction System: Tenant Right to Counsel. The Eviction Lab, April 25, 2025. https://evictionlab.org/disrupting-the-eviction-system/; Schultheis and Rooney, A Right to Counsel Is a Right to a Fighting Chance.
[18] Abby Boshart, How Eviction Affects Neighborhoods, Housing Matters, Urban Institute, June 7, 2023, https://housingmatters.urban.org/articles/how-eviction-
[19] Civil Right to Counsel, “All About Connecticut’s Eviction Right to Counsel,” October 14, 2025, https://civilrighttocounsel.org/major-developments/all-about-con
necticuts-eviction-right-to-counsel/
[20] Alysha Gardner, “Conscience of the Community: Fair Rent Commissions in Action,” Partnership for Strong Communities, August 11, 2025, https://pschousing.org/conscience-of-the-
community-fair-rent-commissions-in-action/
[21] City of New Haven, “Fair Rent Commission,” City of New Haven official website, https://www.newhavenct.gov/government/departments-divisions/fair-rent-commission/
[22] An Act Concerning Fair Rent Commissions, Public Act No. 22‑30 (2022), Connecticut General Assembly, https://www.cga.ct.gov/2022/act/pa/pdf/2022PA-
[23] Fionnuala Darby‑Hudgens, “Eighty‑Three Percent of Connecticut’s Residents Now Have Access to a Fair Rent Commission,” CTData, November 19, 2025, https://www.ctdata.