National Indian Country Clearinghouse on Sexual Assault


Unfortunately, federal laws might not sufficiently protect American Indian/Alaska Native victims of sexual and domestic violence’s housing rights.  The Violence Against Women Act’s (VAWA) housing protection provisions apply to a very limited number of victims receiving federal housing assistance from specifically enumerated programs.  The majority of American Indian/ Alaskan Native victims of sexual and domestic violence likely are not protected by VAWA.   The Federal government, however, is not the only government entity that has prioritized the housing rights of victims.  Several states have enacted laws, some of which provide much more rights than federal laws, to victims of domestic violence.  These state laws are especially relevant for victims who are former intimate partners of the perpetrator and who also reside in either an urban area or in areas adjacent to or near tribal lands. 

The first type of protection that different states have enacted is a non-discrimination law.  Washington D.C. amended their fair housing statutes to include victims of domestic violence as a protected class of people.  Thus, in these jurisdictions, it is against the law to discriminate against someone based upon their status as a domestic violence victim.  Some examples of prohibited, discriminatory behavior in these jurisdictions includes: refusing to rent to a victim of domestic violence, charging a victim of domestic violence more rent than other tenants, evicting a victim of domestic violence because of the violence perpetrated against her, and lying to a victim of domestic violence and telling her that there is no availability, when there really is.  At least four other states (Arkansas, Indiana, North Carolina, and Washington) have amended their housing codes so that it is illegal to evict a victim of domestic violence based upon the violence committed against her.  This provision is similar to the protections contained in the Violence Against Women Act, but, in these states, the protection is extended to all tenants, regardless of the type of housing in which they live.

Further, some landlords attempt to evict victims of domestic violence, citing that the violence in the victim’s unit violated the terms of her lease.  In response, several states provide domestic violence victims with a statutorily supported defense to eviction.  At least seven states have adopted this protection as law: Colorado, Washington D.C., Iowa, Louisiana (only applies to public housing authorities), New Mexico, Virginia, and Washington.  In these jurisdictions, the victim would invoke this affirmative defense if a landlord was attempting to evict her because a crime (the domestic violence) had been committed in her unit, because there had been a dangerous act committed in her unit,

or because the domestic violence violated some terms of her lease,because there had been a dangerous act committed in her unit, or because the domestic violence violated some terms of her lease. 


kiva oven


Ordinarily, in these jurisdictions, the victim must provide a police report or some other form of documentation proving her status as a domestic violence victim.  After she has successfully invoked the statute, the landlord is not allowed to evict the victim.


Moreover, sometimes tenants do a disservice to victims by attempting to punish them for calling for help.  In response, at least six states prohibit landlords from limiting victims’ access to police assistance: Arizona, Colorado, Washington D.C., Minnesota, Texas, and Wisconsin.  In these states, the tenant has the absolute right to summon emergency assistance, including emergency medical or police assistance.


Many victim advocates recommend changing the locks to some victim’s home as part of a safety plan.  At least ten jurisdictions (Arizona, Arkansas, California, Washington D.C., Illinois, Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, and Washington) have laws that either permit the victim to change the locks on her home or require the landlord to change locks on the victim’s home.  If the victim is married to the perpetrator, it is common to require the victim to provide proof that she has a protection order against the perpetrator before the landlord can change the locks.  Regardless, the ability to change the locks on her home provides the victim with greater peace of mind and better safety in these situations.

Many victim advocates also recommend moving to another home or apartment as part of the victim’s safety plan.  Fortunately, at least fourteen jurisdictions (Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Washington D.C., Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, and Washington) have enacted laws which allow victims of domestic violence to terminate their leases early.

Although all of these state laws provide additional protection to victims, it is hard to ignore the fact that, in the majority of states, the protection is only provided if the victim is an intimate partner or former intimate partner of the perpetrator.  Often, victims of sexual violence perpetrated by strangers are afforded no more protection than they are by federal law.


Statutes - (15)

Case Law - (1)


Full Publication List



Featured Publications


1985 N.Y. Op. Atty. Gen. 45 (1985)


1985 N.Y. Op. Atty. Gen. 45 (1985)


1985 N.Y. Op. Atty. Gen. 45 (1985). This opinion, issued by the New York Attorney General in 1985, forbids landlords from evicting victims of domestic violence.



California Civil Code § 1161.3


California Civil Code § 1161.3


This law prohibits Californian landlords from evicting a based upon an act of sexual assault, domestic violence, or stalking committed against the tenant. This law only applies if the tenant does not live with the perpetrator and the tenant has a police report or restraining order based upon the incident that was issued in the past 180 days. However, a landlord may still evict a tenant if the survivor invites the perpetrator to his or her house or if the landlord believes in good faith that the perpetrator will act violently against other tenants.



Indigo Real Estate Services v. Rousey, 151 Wash. App. 941 (Wash. 2009)


Indigo Real Estate Services v. Rousey, 151 Wash. App. 941 (Wash. 2009)


In this case, Indigo Real Estate Services attempted to evict Ms. Rousey after violent altercations with her partner. Indigo finally agreed cease its attempts to evict Ms. Rousey because it is a violation of Washington state law to evict or discriminate against a tenant because she is a victim of domestic violence. Then, Ms. Rousey attempted to redact her personal information from court records. The trial court did not grant her request. On appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that it was not sufficiently based on law and fact.



National Indian Country Clearinghouse on Sexual Assault, a project by the Southwest Center for Law and Policy © 2019

This project was supported by  Grant No. 2011-TA-AX-K045 awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women. Points of view in this document are those of the author and do not necessary represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. All rights reserved. | Privacy policy   Login