Court rules against city in voucher law case

The state’s Commonwealth Court has upheld an earlier court ruling against the city of Pittsburgh, saying the city did not have the authority to enact an ordinance barring landlords from discriminating against tenants with subsidized housing vouchers.

It’s unclear if the city will appeal the case again. A spokesman for Mayor Bill Peduto said the city is reviewing the ruling.

At issue in the litigation is a 2015 city ordinance forbidding discrimination against renters based on their “source of income,” such as a Housing Choice Voucher, commonly called a Section 8 voucher. The Apartment Association of Metropolitan Pittsburgh brought the case against the city, arguing it doesn’t have the authority under state law to impose this requirement on businesses. The city has argued the law is needed to prevent discrimination against voucher-holders, which is often a proxy for racial discrimination.

The case was argued in February before judges Anne Covey, Christine Fizzano Cannon and Ellen Ceisler.

“We conclude that the City did not have such authority,” Judge Ceisler wrote in her opinion, filed Thursday.

Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Joseph James in 2018 ruled the ordinance “invalid and unenforceable.” Commonwealth Court judges agreed in a 2019 ruling, but the state’s Supreme Court ordered the Commonwealth Court to hear the case a second time, in light of the Supreme Court upholding the city’s ordinance that employers provide paid sick days.

“Obviously, we’re pleased with the decision. It confirms what we’ve been saying all along,” Jim Eichenlaub, the association’s executive director, said Friday.