Stable Homes Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5]
- Committees
- Financial Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 13, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to reduce evictions by funding local pre-filing diversion programs that offer mediation, rental assistance, and legal aid, seeking to resolve disputes before they reach court.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a five-year pilot program within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide grants to units of general local government. These grants are intended to fund the creation or expansion of pre-filing eviction diversion programs, which require landlords to notify tenants of their rights and engage in good faith dispute resolution for at least 30 days before initiating formal eviction proceedings. The bill also mandates free legal counsel for low-income tenants if the landlord is represented.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that pre-filing eviction diversion programs are a cost-effective way to prevent homelessness, stabilize housing, and reduce the burden on housing courts. They contend that providing tenants with early notice, access to resources like rental assistance and mediation, and legal representation can resolve disputes amicably, benefiting both landlords by avoiding costly court processes and tenants by preserving their homes.
Opponents contend
Critics might express concerns about the administrative burden placed on local governments and landlords, particularly the requirement for a 30-day pre-filing engagement period and the provision of free legal counsel, which could be seen as an unfunded mandate or an overreach into private landlord-tenant relationships. Some may also question the effectiveness of diversion programs in cases where tenants genuinely cannot pay rent or violate lease terms.
The bill is short and clearly written, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a few minutes.
Section 2(a)
Pilot Program Establishment
This section directs the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to create a pilot program within one year of the bill's enactment. The program will award grants to eligible units of general local government to either start new pre-filing eviction diversion programs or expand existing ones. The goal is to help prevent evictions before they become formal court cases, aiming to resolve disputes earlier in the process.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that establishing a federal grant program is crucial to provide the necessary resources for local governments to implement effective eviction prevention strategies, which are often underfunded. This federal support can catalyze widespread adoption of successful diversion models.
Critics contend
Some might argue that housing issues are best handled at the local or state level without federal intervention, or that a pilot program may not be sufficient to address the scale of the eviction crisis nationally.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for federal support to address a national housing crisis with the principle of local control over housing policy and program implementation.
Section 2(h)
Eviction Diversion Program Attributes
This section defines what an 'eviction diversion program' must include to be eligible for grant funding. Key requirements are: landlords must provide written notice to tenants about their right to participate, both parties must engage in good faith for at least 30 days before formal eviction filings, and the program must offer dispute resolution services like rental assistance, mediation, and housing counseling. It also includes an exception for physical harm and allows tenants to use landlord non-compliance as a defense.
Section 2(g)
Funding Authorization
This section authorizes the appropriation of $300,000,000 for the Secretary of HUD for each of the fiscal years 2026 through 2030. This funding is intended to carry out the grant program for eviction diversion initiatives, providing a total of $1.5 billion over the five-year pilot period if fully appropriated.
If a landlord is represented by legal counsel in an eviction diversion program, the tenant has a right to free legal counsel if their income is at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty line, and this counsel must be provided before the diversion process begins.
Section 2(h)(6)
Why it matters:While standard legislative practice to define program parameters comprehensively within a definition section, its placement might lead a casual reader to overlook the significant implications of a federally mandated right to counsel in these specific circumstances.
Case for: Proponents argue that providing legal counsel to low-income tenants is essential for ensuring a fair and equitable dispute resolution process, as landlords often have legal representation, creating an imbalance of power. This provision helps level the playing field and improve tenant outcomes.
Case against: Critics might argue that mandating free legal counsel for tenants, especially at 200% of the poverty line, could be costly for local governments and potentially strain legal aid resources, effectively creating an unfunded mandate on local programs.
Estimated impact: This provision could significantly increase access to justice for low-income tenants, potentially altering the outcomes of many eviction disputes in jurisdictions that receive grants, leading to greater housing stability.
This provision states that if a landlord does not comply with any requirement of the eviction diversion program, the tenant has the ability to assert such noncompliance as a defense in any related formal eviction court proceeding.
Section 2(h)(5)
Why it matters:This is a standard way to define the legal implications of program participation within the program's definition. However, its significance as a new legal defense for tenants could be overlooked, despite its potential impact on eviction proceedings.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision is vital for ensuring landlord compliance with the diversion program, providing a concrete incentive for landlords to participate in good faith and adhere to the program's rules. Without it, the diversion program might lack enforcement teeth.
Case against: Critics might contend that this creates an additional legal hurdle for landlords seeking to regain possession of their property, potentially prolonging eviction processes even when a tenant has violated lease terms, and could lead to more complex court cases.
Estimated impact: This could significantly shift the balance of power in eviction proceedings, providing tenants with a powerful new legal tool to challenge evictions if landlords fail to follow diversion program rules, potentially reducing successful eviction filings.