Where Source-of-Income Discrimination Is Banned — State Map 2026

Source-of-income (SOI) discrimination — refusing Section 8 vouchers, treating voucher applicants differently in screening, or advertising "no vouchers" — is now illegal in 20-plus states and over 100 localities. The map has changed substantially since 2018, with Michigan adding statewide protection in 2024 and several states adopting in the 2019–2023 window. Operators using boilerplate "no Section 8" language in listings are creating fair-housing exposure that's automatic — the violation occurs before any tenant is even screened.

States with statewide SOI protection (19)

• California (effective 2020).
• Connecticut.
• Colorado (HB 20-1332, since 2021).
• Delaware.
• Hawaii.
• Maine.
• Maryland (HB 231, 2020).
• Massachusetts (since 1978 — the oldest US SOI protection).
• Michigan (2024 amendment to Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act).
• Minnesota (via public-assistance protected class).
• New Jersey (since 2002).
• New York.
• Oregon (ORS 659A.421).
• Rhode Island.
• Utah (verify current text — recent amendment).
• Vermont.
• Virginia.
• Washington (RCW 59.18.255, since 2018).
• Wisconsin (via lawful-source-of-income protected class).

Plus the District of Columbia.

Local-only protection: major metros to know

In states without statewide protection, many large cities have adopted SOI ordinances:

• Illinois: no statewide. Cook County + Chicago have local SOI ordinances covering most of the state's renters by population.
• Texas: no statewide. Austin and Dallas have explored — none enacted as of 2026.
• Florida: no statewide. Miami-Dade County has a local ordinance.
• Georgia: no statewide. Atlanta and several other cities have SOI ordinances.
• Pennsylvania: no statewide. Philadelphia, Pittsburgh have local protection.
• Ohio: no statewide. Columbus and Cleveland have local ordinances.
• Tennessee: no statewide. Memphis has limited local protection.
• Indiana: no statewide. Indianapolis and Bloomington have local SOI ordinances.
• Iowa: no statewide. Iowa City and Polk County (Des Moines area) have local protection.
• Missouri: no statewide. Kansas City and St. Louis have local SOI ordinances.
• Kentucky: no statewide. Louisville-Jefferson and Lexington-Fayette have local protection.

States without statewide or substantial local protection

• Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire (verify RSA 354-A current text — recent amendments may have added it), New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming.

In these states, the listing and screening practices are limited only by federal Fair Housing Act protections (which do not include source of income as a federally protected class). Operators can decline voucher applicants, but should be aware of the broader compliance posture in case of future state amendments — several of these states have proposed SOI bills repeatedly.

What SOI compliance actually requires

For operators in SOI-protected jurisdictions, compliance requires:

1. Remove "no Section 8," "no vouchers," "no government assistance" language from listings on Zillow, Apartments.com, Craigslist, social media, and any other channel.
2. Apply screening criteria uniformly to voucher and non-voucher applicants. Same minimum credit score, same income multiple (often pegged to the tenant's portion only, not the voucher amount), same eviction lookback, same criminal-history rule.
3. Income calculation: for voucher holders, the tenant's monthly portion is the income consideration — not the gross rent. Requiring a voucher holder to qualify on the gross rent is effectively a refusal.
4. Lease execution: voucher tenants are not exempt from your standard lease terms (other than the voucher payment mechanism). Background check, deposit (subject to state cap), move-in inspection — all standard.
5. HUD interaction: voucher payments come from the local housing authority. Most authorities have specific inspection and lease-addendum requirements. Compliance is procedural, not optional.

The "income multiple" issue

A common operator practice — requiring applicants to earn 3× the rent in monthly income — needs special handling for voucher holders. The HUD-recognized practice is to apply the 3× multiple to the tenant's PORTION of the rent, not the gross. A voucher holder paying $400 out of a $2,000 gross rent should be evaluated on the $400 — not the $2,000.

Failing to do this is a near-automatic SOI claim in jurisdictions where SOI is protected.

Fair-housing enforcement reality

SOI cases are increasingly automated. State human-rights commissions and HUD-affiliated agencies run paired-tester programs that flag advertisements and screening conversations. The violation pattern — "no Section 8" in a listing — generates referral within days.

Operators in SOI-protected jurisdictions should treat the compliance review as a one-time portfolio audit:

• Pull all current and recent listings; remove any restrictive language.
• Update screening criteria documents to specify uniform application.
• Train any staff handling rental inquiries on the SOI rule.
• For multi-state operators: the SOI-protected jurisdictions are scattered enough that a global "no Section 8" policy is creating compliance debt in many of them.

How Proprietio handles SOI compliance

Proprietio's listing and screening workflows flag any property in an SOI-protected jurisdiction during listing creation and block restrictive language. Screening criteria are configured per state to require uniform application. Voucher-applicant income calculations default to the tenant-portion model rather than the gross-rent model.

The SOI map is changing every legislative session. The trend is one-directional — more jurisdictions add protection; very few repeal. Operators building portfolios in 2026 should assume their state will eventually adopt SOI protection if it hasn't already, and structure listings, screening, and lease practice accordingly.

Browse all 50 state landlord-tenant guides for jurisdiction-specific discrimination protections.