Eleanor Smith Inclusive Home Design Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9]
- Committees
- Financial Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 23, 2026
Bottom line
The Eleanor Smith Inclusive Home Design Act of 2026 aims to increase accessibility in federally assisted housing by requiring basic visitability features for people with disabilities.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that all newly constructed single-family houses and townhouses receiving federal assistance must meet minimum visitability standards for persons with disabilities, specifically the ANSI A117.1-2017 Type C (Visitable) Units standard. It establishes a multi-tiered enforcement mechanism involving federal agencies, state/local building code authorities, private civil actions, and the Attorney General.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill addresses a critical need for accessible housing, allowing individuals with disabilities to visit friends and family in federally assisted homes. They emphasize that visitability features are low-cost to incorporate during initial construction but prohibitively expensive to retrofit, promoting inclusivity and independent living. They would highlight the importance of the ANSI A117.1-2017 Type C standard as a reasonable and widely recognized benchmark.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that mandating specific design standards, even for federally assisted housing, could increase construction costs, potentially making housing less affordable or discouraging developers from seeking federal assistance. They might also raise concerns about federal overreach into local building codes or the potential for increased litigation.
The bill is concise and can be read and understood within a short timeframe, making it accessible for informed evaluation.
Section 1
Short Title
This section establishes the official short title of the Act as the "Eleanor Smith Inclusive Home Design Act of 2026." This name honors Eleanor Smith, a prominent advocate for visitability, providing a recognizable and symbolic identity for the legislation.
Supporters argue
Naming the bill after a key advocate helps to honor their legacy and highlight the bill's purpose, drawing attention to the importance of inclusive home design.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the naming of a bill, as it is generally considered a symbolic gesture.
Tradeoffs
None.
Section 2
Key Definitions
This section defines critical terms used throughout the Act, including "covered dwelling unit" (which types of homes are subject to the requirements), "Federal assistance" (what types of federal aid trigger the requirements), "modular home," and "person or entity." It specifies that covered units are single-family, townhouses, modular homes, or ground-floor units in buildings of not more than 3 dwelling units, and that federal assistance includes grants, loans, tax credits, and guarantees.
Section 3
Minimum Visitability Standards
This section makes it unlawful for any person or entity involved in the design or construction of a "covered dwelling unit" (as defined in Section 2) to fail to ensure that at least one level of the unit complies with the "Standards for Type C (Visitable) Units" of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI A117.1-2017) or any successor standard. This means homes must include basic accessibility features like a zero-step entrance, wider doorways, and an accessible bathroom on the main floor.
Section 4
Multi-Tiered Enforcement Framework
This section outlines how the visitability requirement will be enforced. It requires applicants for federal assistance to provide assurance of compliance (Sec. 4a). It mandates that state or local agencies responsible for building plan approval review and approve plans for covered dwelling units for compliance with this Act, and withhold final construction/occupancy approval if non-compliant (Sec. 4b). It also allows private individuals aggrieved by a violation to bring civil actions (Sec. 4c) and empowers the Attorney General to bring civil actions or intervene in private cases (Sec. 4d). Courts can award damages and order retrofitting (Sec. 4e).
Section 5
Effect on State Laws
This section clarifies that the Act does not invalidate or limit any state or local law that provides equal or greater rights, protections, or requirements for visitability. However, any state or local law that would permit actions violating this Act would be invalid to that extent. This establishes a federal floor, not a ceiling, for accessibility standards.
The visitability requirements and the definition of "Federal assistance" only apply to covered dwelling units made available for first occupancy on or after the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and Federal assistance provided or otherwise made available on or after the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
Section 2(1)(D) and 2(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to provide a grace period for implementation, allowing agencies, developers, and state/local governments time to prepare for the new requirements. It is not necessarily evasive.
Case for: The one-year delay provides a reasonable transition period, allowing stakeholders to update plans, train personnel, and adjust processes without immediate disruption, thereby facilitating smoother and more effective implementation of the new standards.
Case against: Advocates for immediate accessibility might argue that a one-year delay postpones necessary improvements for people with disabilities, especially given the urgent need for accessible housing options, delaying the benefits of the Act.
Estimated impact: Delays the practical impact of the bill by one year from its enactment date, meaning no new visitable homes under this Act will be available before that time.
In a civil action brought by a private person, if architectural or construction plans were approved by a State or local agency, and those approved plans violate the Act, the State or local agency is liable for construction performed in accordance with those plans. If the approved plans comply but construction violates the Act, the person/entity responsible for construction is liable.
Section 4(c)(2)
Why it matters:This detail clarifies liability in complex scenarios involving multiple parties (designers, builders, and approving agencies). It's a technical legal point designed to ensure accountability, not necessarily an attempt to hide its implications.
Case for: This provision ensures accountability by placing liability on the party responsible for the error, whether it's the approving agency for faulty plan review or the builder for deviating from compliant plans. It protects builders who follow approved, albeit flawed, plans.
Case against: State and local agencies might express concern about increased liability exposure, potentially leading to more cautious (and slower) approval processes or demands for increased funding for review staff and legal defense, creating an unfunded mandate.
Estimated impact: Shifts potential legal and financial risk to state/local agencies if their plan review processes are deficient, potentially increasing their operational costs and legal burdens.