As you may have seen in the news, the federal government shut down at midnight on Wednesday, October 1, following the expiration of the fiscal year without a new funding agreement. This situation remains fluid, and we are closely monitoring developments to keep you informed.

Please note that circumstances may change rapidly, and we will continue to provide updates as new information becomes available.

At this point, here is what we know about how the shutdown could affect you as a property manager and your clients:

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

• The NFIP has officially lapsed. FEMA cannot issue new flood insurance policies or renew existing ones during the shutdown.
• Existing policies remain valid until their expiration date, and claims will continue to be processed—though FEMA’s borrowing authority has been reduced from $30.4 billion to just $1 billion, which may delay payments if a major disaster occurs.
• Real estate transactions in flood-prone areas may be delayed or canceled due to the inability to secure required flood insurance.
• NARPM has joined with other 15 other organizations in urging Congress to extend the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8)

• Payments to housing authorities are expected to continue through mid-November 2025, using previously obligated funds. Housing authorities also have reserves that could possibly be used after that point.
• Authorities may be able to tap into reserves beyond that point if the shutdown persists.
  However, new voucher issuances and certain administrative functions may be delayed due to HUD staff furloughs.

What You Can Do

• Communicate proactively with clients, tenants, and owners about potential delays or disruptions.
• Review flood insurance policies and advise clients on private market alternatives if needed.
• Monitor voucher payments and prepare contingency plans in case of funding delays.
• Stay informed through NARPM updates and official agency communications.

We understand the uncertainty this shutdown creates for your operations and your clients. NARPM is actively advocating for swift resolution and will continue to provide updates as new information becomes available.

In the face of an impending government shutdown, NARPM joined 15 other organizations on Monday in urging Congress to extend the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

The coalition issued the following request to Congress:

Should there be a lapse in government funding, we urge you to immediately pass the “NFIP Extension Act of 2026. This bill would extend  the NFIP through September 30, 2026, aligning with the end of the fiscal year. Extending the NFIP would ensure this vital program does not lapse, avoiding additional challenges for residential and commercial property owners, buyers, managers, and tenants.

As Congress navigates the shutdown, NARPM remains committed to advocating for solutions that prevent disruptions for property managers, owners, and tenants.

Coalition Letter to Congress

NARPM has joined a coalition of housing providers urging policymakers—including Congress and the Trump Administration—to pursue bipartisan solutions to the housing affordability crisis. The coalition emphasized the need to increase housing supply at all price points and cautions against policies that impose excessive financial burdens on housing providers, which could hinder development and reduce existing stock. The coalition supports several legislative measures aimed at boosting housing supply without adding regulatory burdens, including the following:

• Housing Supply Frameworks Act (H.R. 2840 / S. 1299): Directs HUD to publish best practices for state and local zoning frameworks. Sponsored by Reps. Flood (R-NE), Pettersen (D-CO), and Sens. Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Crapo (R-ID), Fetterman (D-PA), and Tillis (R-NC).

• Choice in Affordable Housing Act of 2025 (H.R. 1981 / S. 890): Streamlines procedures in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program to encourage participation. Sponsored by Reps. Cleaver (D-MO), Lawler (R-NY), and Sens. Coons (D-DE), Cramer (R-ND).

• Identifying Regulatory Barriers to Housing Supply Act (H.R. 4659 / S. 2416): Requires CDBG recipients to report on efforts to eliminate discriminatory land use policies and promote inclusive development. Sponsored by Reps. Flood and Pettersen, and Sens. Young (R-IN) and Schatz (D-HI).

• Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) for Housing Vouchers: Proposes a pilot program to convert Housing Choice Vouchers to EBT, removing HUD lease and inspection requirements to reduce stigma and improve efficiency.

• Revitalizing Downtowns and Main Streets Act (H.R. 2410): Offers a 20% tax credit to convert underutilized commercial properties into affordable rental housing. Sponsored by Reps. Carey (D-OH), Gomez (D-CA), and 29 cosponsors.

Coalition to Letter to Congress

Today, NARPM joined 35 other national housing stakeholders in asking for a floor vote in the US Senate on the bipartisan ROAD to Housing Act. In July, the Senate Banking Committee unanimously approved the bipartisan ROAD to Housing Act, a comprehensive legislative package aimed at addressing critical housing challenges across the country.

The bill, assembled by Chair Tim Scott (R-SC) and Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), consolidates several bipartisan housing proposals. NARPM has expressed support for multiple provisions within the legislation and has urged the Committee to go even further—specifically by eliminating the CARES Act’s 30-day Notice-to-Vacate requirement and expanding reforms to the Housing Choice Voucher Program. The following is an outline of the bill. Detailed information follows below.

• Expand and Preserve Housing Supply:
  • Remove regulatory barriers to housing development
  • Increase and preserve existing housing
  • Promote innovative construction methods, including to expand access to modular and manufactured housing
  • Addresses neighborhood blight and supports communities recovering from natural disasters
• Improve Housing Affordability and Access:
  • Expand access to homeownership
  • Improve housing affordability
  • Promote housing opportunities for veterans
  • Reduce homelessness
  • Reduce appraisal shortages while addressing inaccurate appraisals
• Advance Accountability and Fiscal Responsibility:
  • Ensure taxpayer dollars are used efficiently
  • Promote evidence-based policy solutions
• Improve Oversight and Program Integrity:
  • Strengthen oversight of housing regulators
  • Streamline program coordination
  • Ensure performance, transparency, and accountability across housing programs

Joint Letter to Majority Leader Thune and Senate Leadership

Detailed List of Provisions in the Bill

No doubt, you have read or heard about the court case in the U.S. Eastern District of Louisiana involving emotional support animals (ESA’s). There is a great deal of information out there, and it is important to understand what this case means – and what it does not mean.

Case Summary: Henderson v. Five Properties LLC

In Henderson v. Five Properties LLC, the U.S. Eastern District of Louisiana addressed whether a landlord must waive an animal fee for a tenant with an emotional support animal (ESA) under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Louisiana Equal Housing Opportunity Act (LEHOA).

Background

Plaintiff Michaela Henderson applied to lease an apartment at Sunlake Apartments, managed by Five Properties LLC, and requested a waiver of the $400 nonrefundable animal fee for her dog, Tydus, citing his status as an ESA. Henderson submitted a letter from an advance practice registered nurse (“APRN”) stating that she had a mental/emotional disability and that Tydus helped alleviate her symptoms. However, the defendants denied the waiver, arguing that Henderson had not demonstrated that the fee waiver was necessary for her to use and enjoy the apartment, especially given her financial ability to pay the fee.

Legal Issues

Henderson sued under:

• 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(b) of the FHA
• La. Rev. Stat. § 51:2606(A)(6)(a)(ii) of the LEHOA

She claimed the denial of the fee waiver constituted discrimination by Five Properties LLC for failing to provide a reasonable accommodation.

The Decision

The Court ruled in favor of the defendants:

• The court found that Henderson failed to prove the fee waiver was necessary for her to use and enjoy her housing and was reasonable.
• The court emphasized that a reasonable accommodation under the FHA and LEHOA is a fact-specific inquiry, not an automatic entitlement.

What Does this Mean?

It is important to understand the scope of this decision: It is only binding on the parties to this case. The ruling does not create a new nationwide precedent or standard concerning ESA accommodation requests or requests for fee waivers.

There is significant case precedent and federal guidance supporting reasonable accommodations for ESAs. Therefore, consult your attorney before denying a request for a reasonable accommodation or a fee waiver.

On August 6, 2025, North Carolina Governor Josh Stein signed Senate Bill 55 (SL 2025-88) into law, marking a significant legislative win for property owners and managers across the state. The bill, titled “Expedited Removal of Unauthorized Persons,” streamlines the legal process for removing individuals unlawfully occupying residential properties, enhancing protections for landlords and property managers. NARPM strongly supported the measure, recognizing its importance in safeguarding property rights. NARPM initiated three targeted calls to action in which a significant number of NARPM members emailed, called, and/or tweeted support for the legislation.

NARPM members are increasingly interacting with ICE and other federal agencies concerning the immigration status of tenants. Please see linked below an article written by national property management attorney Monica Gilroy to understand your liability risks and obligations when such encounters take place. Monica is an active member of NARPM^®, a popular speaker at NARPM^® National Events and the General Counsel for the Atlanta NARPM^® Chapter.

Single Family Residential Property Managers and ICE: A PM’s perspective

Monica K. Gilroy, Esquire, The Gilroy Firm, Atlanta Georgia, mkg@gilroyfirm.com

With the recent spotlight on immigration enforcement efforts, landlords and property managers may be faced with how to respond to interactions with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

ICE has the power to issue “administrative subpoenas” or “administrative warrants”, which are formal requests for information or testimony related to immigration investigations. These subpoenas and warrants are not issued by a court but by ICE officers and can be directed to individuals or entities. 

Unlike subpoenas issued by a Court, or a warrant signed by a judge, property managers can refuse to comply with these “subpoenas” and “warrants” without fear of penalty.  An ICE administrative subpoena is a written demand issued by an ICE officer. It requires the recipient to produce records or testify in connection with an immigration investigation. ICE uses subpoenas to gather information. ICE subpoenas must be reasonable, meaning they must be tailored, relevant, and clear in their purpose.

Immigration authorities are demanding that landlords turn over leases, rental applications, forwarding addresses, identification cards and other information concerning their tenants. A rental application can include work history, marital status and family relationships.

The demands pose serious legal questions because they are not signed by a judge and , if landlords comply, they might risk violating the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin. Further, in many states, there are privacy concerns about the information you may have in your possession as a property manager which could also lead to liability. 

In some jurisdictions, immigration or citizenship status are protected classes under fair housing laws, creating legal protections prohibiting landlords from inquiring about a tenant’s immigration or citizenship status during the leasing process. Property managers should be mindful of these laws when handling law enforcement requests related to immigration enforcement.

If an individual or entity doesn’t comply with an ICE subpoena, ICE must petition a court to enforce the subpoena.

It is important to understand that an ICE administrative warrant is different than a judicial warrant. Judicial warrants are signed by a judge, and they allow for entry into nonpublic areas without consent and are required for arrests or searches. If law enforcement officers arrive at a property, they may be from different agencies, including ICE, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or the Department of Justice (DOJ). Each agency may present different types of legal documents, and it is critical to understand the distinctions:

• Criminal Warrants – Issued by a judge, these warrants may grant law enforcement the right to access a property or obtain specific information.
• Civil (Administrative) Warrants – Issued by immigration officers rather than a judge, these do not automatically grant access to private property.
• I-9 Audits – Requests for employment eligibility documentation; typically, businesses have three days to respond.

It is natural to feel intimidated into complying with something that a judge hasn’t ordered, all while the person whose information is being requested may never know that their private records are in the hands of immigration authorities. Some ICE investigations have demanded property managers hand over surveillance footage or give local police access to a property as part of an investigation. This type of demand must be signed by a judge and not just by ICE to be enforceable.

Bottom line-compliance with an ICE administrative subpoena or warrant is optional. Unless signed by a judge, the letters are essentially just an ICE officer making a request.

If you get an ICE administrative warrant or subpoena, seek legal counsel immediately. You do not have to comply with an administrative warrant or subpoena until a court orders it, If ICE seeks court enforcement, your attorney can raise legal challenges to the subpoena. ICE cannot directly enforce a subpoena. They must petition a court to enforce it. Recipients can challenge the validity of the warrant or subpoena in court. Penalties for non-compliance are only applicable if a court orders compliance and the recipient still refuses. It is essential not to assume that any document presented requires immediate action. Instead, property managers should take the time to review the warrant or subpoena, confirm its validity and consult legal counsel.

In general, even with court-ordered warrants or subpoenas, tenant privacy must be safeguarded during interactions with law enforcement. Property managers should always request a full copy of the warrant or subpoena before taking any action on the same. Determining whether the warrant or subpoena is a criminal or administrative warrant or subpoena is vital to determine whether it grants law enforcement the right to enter the property. Your staff should be trained to escalate any type of warrant or subpoena to the highest level of authority in the property management company. If you do provide information, only provide what is legally required or requested. If they are not asking, for example, for bank account information, or forwarding addresses, then do not provide it. And always take a moment to review the request and consult legal counsel to prevent unnecessary disclosures.

Property managers should be cautious about providing legal advice to tenants. If tenants ask what to do in the event of an ICE visit, the best response is to direct them to legal aid organizations or immigration attorneys. Providing legal guidance could lead to liability if tenants misinterpret the information.

If you receive any type of subpoena or warrant of any nature, it is wise to consult with your local attorney.

Please note, that this article is intended for information purposes only and is not legal advice. Please consult with your attorney before implementing any guidance discussed in the Article.

NARPM has long championed the need for stronger, more effective housing policy. These efforts—alongside those of many other stakeholders—are beginning to yield results. This past week, the Senate Banking Committee unanimously approved the bipartisan ROAD to Housing Act, a comprehensive legislative package aimed at addressing critical housing challenges across the country.

The bill, assembled by Chair Tim Scott (R-SC) and Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), consolidates several bipartisan housing proposals. NARPM has expressed support for multiple provisions within the legislation and has urged the Committee to go even further—specifically by eliminating the CARES Act’s 30-day Notice-to-Vacate requirement and expanding reforms to the Housing Choice Voucher Program. The following is an outline of the bill. Detailed information follows below.

• Expand and Preserve Housing Supply:
  • Remove regulatory barriers to housing development
  • Increase and preserve existing housing
  • Promote innovative construction methods, including to expand access to modular and manufactured housing
  • Addresses neighborhood blight and supports communities recovering from natural disasters
• Improve Housing Affordability and Access:
  • Expand access to homeownership
  • Improve housing affordability
  • Promote housing opportunities for veterans
  • Reduce homelessness
  • Reduce appraisal shortages while addressing inaccurate appraisals
• Advance Accountability and Fiscal Responsibility:
  • Ensure taxpayer dollars are used efficiently
  • Promote evidence-based policy solutions
• Improve Oversight and Program Integrity:
  • Strengthen oversight of housing regulators
  • Streamline program coordination
  • Ensure performance, transparency, and accountability across housing programs

Detailed List of Provisions in the Bill

Bill Text

NARPM Comment Letter