Eviction Right to Counsel Act of 2025
SB 2463, the Eviction Right to Counsel Act of 2025, would create a federal grant program administered by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to support state, local, and tribal governments that enact or are financially responsible for implementing right-to-counsel laws for low-income tenants facing eviction. The bill defines a covered tenant as someone at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty line and covers eviction proceedings as well as proceedings involving termination of a housing subsidy.
The bill authorizes $100 million per year for fiscal years 2026 through 2030 to fund grants through a new Eviction Right to Counsel Fund in the Treasury. Eligible governments would apply for grants by certifying that they have enacted right-to-counsel legislation or are fiscally responsible for implementing it. HUD would be directed to prioritize applicants that also limit no-fault evictions or lease nonrenewals, require at least 30 days' notice, establish eviction diversion programs, provide emergency rental assistance, or plan to use funds to train and recruit attorneys.
In practical terms, the bill would not directly create a nationwide right to counsel in eviction cases, but it would use federal funding to encourage and help finance such laws at the state and local level. It would also support related tenant-protection measures and legal services infrastructure, including attorney training and recruitment. The measure could affect housing courts, legal aid systems, tenant representation programs, and government budgets in jurisdictions that choose to participate.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of tenant legal representation and eviction prevention. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented debate or bipartisan opposition in the supplied materials. The structure of the bill suggests a policy preference for expanding tenant protections through incentives rather than federal mandates.
Potential points of contention are likely to center on federal spending, the role of HUD in shaping local eviction policy, and whether grants should favor jurisdictions with broader tenant protections such as limits on no-fault evictions and longer notice periods. Landlord interests or fiscal conservatives might object to the cost and regulatory influence, while tenant advocates would likely support the funding and prioritization criteria.
The bill would amend federal housing policy by establishing a new Eviction Right to Counsel Fund and authorizing HUD to distribute grants to states, local governments, and tribal governments that adopt or finance right-to-counsel laws for low-income tenants. It would not preempt state landlord-tenant law, but it would create a federal incentive structure that could influence eviction procedures, legal aid funding, and tenant-defense programs in participating jurisdictions.
The bill appears to have a pro-tenant, pro-legal-aid orientation, with its text emphasizing access to counsel, eviction diversion, emergency rental assistance, and attorney recruitment. No votes or committee discussion were provided, so there is no recorded opposition or support in the supplied materials beyond the bill’s sponsorship and policy design.
The main likely points of contention are the federal cost of the program, the use of federal grants to encourage state and local eviction-policy changes, and the prioritization of jurisdictions that adopt stronger tenant protections such as limits on no-fault evictions and longer notice periods. Supporters would likely include tenant advocates, legal aid organizations, and sponsors focused on housing stability, while critics may include landlord groups, budget hawks, and opponents of expanded government involvement in eviction proceedings.