The Law
California requires landlords to accept otherwise qualified applicants who use Section 8 vouchers. Accepting a voucher means signing a HAP contract and agreeing to inspections and government access to the unit and related records.
This page is for informational and educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. The California lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the state's requirements; the federal court has not yet ruled on that question.
Manning v. Kish
A Constitutional Challenge to California's Section 8 Inspection Requirement
Tower Bridge Property Management and owner Thomas Manning filed this federal case on July 17, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. It asks whether California may require private landlords to participate in the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program — and, with that participation, to consent to government inspections.
About the Lawsuit
Section 8 is a voluntary federal program. California law effectively requires landlords to take part. Taking part means more than accepting a voucher as rent: landlords must enter a Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contract and agree to government inspections and access to the property and certain records.
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable government searches. A landlord who chooses to join Section 8 can choose to agree to those inspections. This case asks whether the government can force a landlord into the program and then rely on that forced participation as consent to inspect.
This case is not about eliminating Section 8. Section 8 provides important housing assistance, and property owners who want to participate should remain free to do so. The issue is whether participation can be forced.
A New York appellate court addressed a similar requirement in 2026. That decision does not control this California federal case, and California's law has not been declared unconstitutional. The same basic question is now before the Eastern District of California.
Why Tower Bridge Filed This Lawsuit
Tower Bridge manages residential rentals in the Sacramento area. California's requirement affects the owners we represent and the decisions we make every day. The three points below summarize the claim as presented in the complaint and on our blog — they are the plaintiffs' arguments, not a court ruling.
The Constitutional Question
Can the state require participation in a voluntary federal program and then treat that requirement as consent to warrantless inspections that a landlord could otherwise refuse?
The Requested Outcome
The complaint asks the court to declare the requirement unconstitutional to the extent it forces landlords to surrender Fourth Amendment protections, and to stop enforcement on that basis. The court has not ruled on that request.
Video About the Lawsuit
This video explains why Tower Bridge brought the challenge and why a related New York decision is part of the public discussion. It is informational only.
Case Updates
July 17, 2026
Lawsuit Filed
Tower Bridge Property Management and Thomas Manning filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, case caption Manning v. Kish.
Read the FilingMedia Coverage
The Center Square
Lawsuit: California law forcing landlords to accept Section 8 unconstitutional
Read ArticleSFist · July 24, 2026
Landlord Sues California, Argues Section 8 Rules Violate Property Owners' Civil Rights
Read ArticleSFGATE / CalMatters · July 27, 2026
California Landlord Fights Law Meant To Help Low-Income Renters
Read ArticleCalMatters
Law meant to help low-income renters challenged by CA landlord
Read ArticleYahoo News
Read ArticleDaily Journal
Landlord challenges California's Section 8 requirements
Read ArticleCourt Documents
Complaint
Manning v. Kish complaint
The complaint filed July 17, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
View PDFRelated Precedent
Matter of People of the State of New York v. Commons West, LLC
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, 2026 NY Slip Op 01253. This is a decision from a different case. It does not control the California federal court.
Read the Official DecisionThis page is for informational and educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. The California lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the state's requirements; the federal court has not yet ruled on that question.
Follow the Case
Receive notice when new court filings, hearings, decisions, videos, or significant updates are added.