Removing the stain of conviction from our housing system 

In today’s historically competitive rental market, it is challenging for almost anyone to find housing. But it is nearly impossible for those formerly incarcerated.

This is one of the more than 40,000 forms of collateral consequences that may pop up at some point in your life if a jury renders a guilty verdict against you, or you negotiate a plea with prosecutors.

Housing plays a vital role in economic mobility and stability, and a conviction is a massive obstacle to obtaining it. This is part of an informal national policy of life-long punishment of men and women who have already paid their debts to society.  

I know firsthand about the lifetime punishments endured by those who have already served their time. At 18, I was sent to prison for dealing drugs in Milwaukee. In the 25 years since, I have built a very different life. I earned a degree from Princeton, opened a successful business, and maintained a stable home for my family. I became a landlord and president of Wisconsin’s largest apartment owner’s trade association.

But none of it mattered when we tried to rent a house in 2022. My accomplishments and financial stability were rendered worthless. A door was slammed in my face. Why? Because of the stain of conviction.  

Congress has an opportunity to correct a decades-long injustice with the introduction of the Fair Future Act, HR 9694.  

The bill would repeal the Thurmond Amendment and restore fair housing protections to millions of Americans with a drug distribution conviction. Introduced by Congressman Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.), it would require landlords to evaluate the worthiness of potential tenants based on their income, credit history and rental record — not solely on a decades-old drug conviction.  

The Thurmond Amendment is one of the last vestiges of the “tough on crime” ethos of the 1980s, the same era that gave us mandatory minimum sentences and the crack vs. powder cocaine sentencing disparity. In 1988, the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) stood on the Senate floor and declared that drug dealers deserved no federal protection; Congress agreed with a simple voice vote. This handed landlords throughout the U.S. discretion to deny housing for life, based on a single drug distribution conviction, regardless of the substance or quantity involved.  

Drug dealers are the bad guys, and those who use their products are the victims, right? In reality, it’s not that straightforward.  

People who sell drugs and people who use drugs are seen as two distinct groups, but they often overlap. Distinguishing between them can be very difficult. People living in poverty often become involved with selling or distribution because they are not able to access adequate economic opportunities in the formal economy, whether because of racial discrimination, discrimination based on past criminal involvement, or because of declining or changing job opportunities in the communities where they live. 

In 2016, 43 percent of those sentenced for drug trafficking offenses at the federal level had not graduated from high school. Another 36 percent had graduated from high school but had no post-secondary education. In many cases, people who sell drugs also use drugs, and might be selling drugs to support their own use.

The Thurmond Amendment most acutely affects non-violent offenders like myself. Ironically, if I had been convicted of murder, I would face fewer housing barriers today. 

In response to this, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued guidelines in 2016 requiring landlords to distinguish between criminal conduct that poses a safety risk and conduct that does not. These guidelines, however, do not apply to drug distribution convictions, because of the Thurmond Amendment.  

For more than 35 years, this law has tethered millions of Americans to their past, denying them one of the most fundamental rights: the right to live where they choose. While a newly proposed rule would limit the application of the Thurmond Amendment in government-subsidized housing, this would still leave lifetime bans in place for people like me, who have achieved economic self-sufficiency and seek housing in the private market. 

The Fair Future Act offers a pragmatic and much-needed solution. It would require landlords to make rental decisions based on what matters rather than relying solely on outdated drug convictions. This is more than just a policy correction. It’s an acknowledgment that people can and do change. It is a step toward addressing inequalities that have persisted for decades under the Thurmond Amendment and the broader war on drugs. 

Our nation must move beyond housing policies rooted in fear and embrace those based on facts. Until Congress rectifies this wrong, no matter how hard people work to rebuild their lives, the freedom to live where they choose will remain behind a locked door for them. 

Yusuf Dahl is the past president of the Rental Property Association of Wisconsin and the founder of the Real Estate Lab in Allentown, Pa. He is currently leading the national effort to repeal the Thurmond Amendment.