Fair Housing Realities: The Struggles of LGBTQ+ Residents in Chicago

Considering the oppressive history of ordinances, regulations, and practices in Chicago that perpetuated and continue to foster racially segregated communities,[1] it should come as no surprise that the LGBTQ+ community tells a similar story of a checkered relationship with equitable housing.[2] While the city espouses a predominantly progressive ideology towards LGBTQ+ rights,[3] the lingering effects of segregationist practices contributes to a climate where LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly those living at the intersection of race and LGBTQ+ status, stand on unequal footing in accessing housing.[4] Nationally, a similar story unfolds as LGBTQ+ people experience “…widespread harassment and discrimination by housing providers.”[5] Despite this pervasive issue, only twenty-two states, including Illinois and the District of Columbia, prohibit discrimination in housing on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.[6] However, in the timeline of American history, the conversation regarding equitable housing for the LGBTQ+ community is a relatively recent development in the public discourse.[7] In large part, this stems from the enforcement of sodomy statutes into the twenty-first century which worked to criminalize an integral aspect of LGBTQ+ identity.

Sodomy Laws

Drawing from prohibitions in British common law, sodomy statutes first appeared in colonial law; however, as time progressed, the substance and selective enforcement of these laws would drastically depart from their original purpose.[8] In nineteenth century iterations, “…anti-sodomy laws criminalized ‘crimes against nature, committed with mankind or with beast’ which generally included anal sex between men and women, men and other men, or men and animals.”[9] Instead of explicitly targeting same-sex sexual conduct, the laws worked to prevent sexual assault because consenting adults were often immunized from prosecution for engaging in prohibited behaviors.[10] However, throughout the twentieth century, the substance and enforcement of sodomy laws shifted to target sexual conduct between LGBTQ+ individuals. In turn, this shift effectively criminalized LGBTQ+ status by criminalizing sexual relations that are an inherent aspect of same-sex relationships, necessarily intertwined with LGBTQ+ status.[11]

In some states, this application of sodomy laws also divested LGBTQ+ individuals’ access to the job market. For instance, in Texas certain applications for jobs and professional licenses required applicants to sign a document vowing to abide by state laws.[12] As a result, LGBTQ+ individuals were presented with a dichotomy: either perjure themselves or do not apply.[13] Consequently, the effects of a limited job market erected a barrier for the LGBTQ+ community in accessing housing, especially considering the same experience higher rates of poverty compared to heterosexual individuals.[14] However, beyond financial stymying, the shifting application of sodomy laws directly inhibited LGBTQ+ couples from securing housing together. Many residential leases required names of all individuals residing in the unit and often clarification of their relationship.[15] In such cases, LGBTQ+ couples risked exposing themselves to legal scrutiny or outright denial of housing, given the criminalization of their relationships under sodomy laws.

Up until 1961, when Illinois became the first state to decriminalize sodomy,[16] every state and the District of Columbia criminalized sodomy.[17] However, leading up to 1986, twenty-one states would follow suit with Illinois by decriminalizing sodomy through legislative acts or court decisions.[18] Nevertheless, in 1986, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws by a five to four margin in Bowers v. Hardwick. In Bowers, the Court answered “whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy.”[19] Writing for the majority, Justice White rejected the argument that the right to privacy conferred individuals a right to engage in consensual same-sex relations in the privacy of their homes.[20] In doing so, the Court held that engaging in acts of consensual sodomy was neither implicit in the concept of ordered liberty or deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition – a necessary barrier to asserting a claim for a right not explicitly proscribed in the Fourteenth Amendment known as substantive rights.[21] As a result, the majority determined that consensual same-sex relations were not a fundamental right that withstood rational basis review when the purpose of sodomy laws were grounded in notions of morality.[22]

Thereafter, Bowers remained good law until 2003 when the Supreme Court took up the issue again in Lawrence v. Texas. In Lawerence, police officers entered the apartment of John Lawrence and observed him and Tyler Garner, another man, engaging in consensual sex.[23] As a result, both were charged with “…deviate sexual intercourse, namely anal sex, with a member of the same sex (man).”[24] Determining whether the Constitution permitted Texas to criminalize the intimate conduct of two persons of the same sex, the Court overruled Bowers, holding that “…the Due Process Clause gives them [people engaging in same-sex sexual relations] the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.”[25]

As of 2023, despite the Court’s nullification of sodomy statutes, the legal codes of twelve states continue to codify sodomy as a crime.[26] Although these statues lay dormant, their existence should be a stark reminder of Justice Thomas’ concurrence in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization – the case that overturned the right to abortion.[27] In his concurrence, Justice Thomas writes, “…substantive due process is an oxymoron that lacks any basis in the Constitution.”[28] Substantive due process jurisprudence solidified the right of LGBTQ+ people to engage in consensual same-sex relations in Lawrence and to marry in Obergefell v. Hodges.[29] Nevertheless, Justice Thomas suggested to his colleagues on the Court that, “we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including…Lawrence, and Obergefell.”[30] In the context of housing, this poses a significant risk to LGBTQ+ couples’ ability to peacefully reside in their living spaces as same-sex couples, especially considering the lack of federal protection for LGBTQ+ people in accessing housing.

The Fair Housing Act

In the wake of the Civil Rights Movement, Congress passed the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) in 1968 to prohibit discrimination in the sale, rental or financing of housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, and, as later amended, disability and familial status.[31] Following the passage of the FHA, Congress unsuccessfully attempted to amend the statute to include protections for sexual orientation and gender identity.[32] In 2019, the House of Representatives passed the Equality Act, which would have provided federal protections for LGBTQ+ people in housing, but the legislation has since stalled out in the Senate committee.[33] Additionally, the Fair and Equal Housing Act, which seeks to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected classes under the FHA, came before House and Senate committees in 2019 but failed to make it out of either chamber.[34] In June of 2023, the bill was reintroduced in the House but has yet to be reintroduced in the Senate.[35]

Yet, despite Congress’ failure to delineate sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes, federal courts are currently divided on whether the FHA prohibits discrimination based on the same in light of the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County.[36] In Bostock, the Court addressed whether the term “sex” applied to sexual orientation and sexual identity discrimination within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[37] Answering the question in the affirmative, the majority recognized that “homosexuality and transgender status are inextricably bound up with sex,”[38] which led the Court to conclude that discrimination based on sexual orientation or identity encompasses sex based discrimination.[39]

Seemingly, the logic of the Court’s holding should easily translate to the definition of sex under the FHA; however, the Bostock majority cabined the application of their reasoning to Title VII given the case involved strict statutory interpretation of the same.[40] At the same time though, proponents for the application of Bostock to the FHA beckon back to Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, in which the court determined that the language of the FHA is broad and inclusive.[41] In light of such an expansive reading, the application of Bostock to the FHA should be nothing short of a formality, especially considering that courts often look to Title VII case law for guidance when presented with cases under the FHA.[42]

Indeed, the Biden administration recognized such an application, and on January 20, 2021, President Biden issued executive order 13988 clarifying that Bostock’s reasoning broadly applies to laws that prohibit sex discrimination, which necessarily includes the FHA.[43] In response, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) issued memos in February 2021 directing “…HUD’s Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity offices, Fair Housing Assistance Program agencies, and Fair Housing Initiatives Program grantees, to fully enforce the Fair Housing Act’s prohibitions against discrimination because of sex to include discrimination because of gender identity or sexual orientation.”[44]

However, in the whirlwind of a second Trump administration, an onslaught of executive orders roll back policies that were once critical to ensuring access to equitable housing and resources for the LGBTQ+ community.[45] On day one, Trump issued an executive order titled, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which purports to recognize only two sexes – male and female.[46] Despite the order’s ignorance to actual biological realities,[47] the order directs the Secretary of HUD to promulgate a policy that rescinds enforcement of the Equal Access Rule.[48] This rule required “housing, facilities, and services funded through HUD’s Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) to ensure equal access to programs for individuals based on their gender identity.”[49]Nevertheless, falling in line, current Secretary of HUD, Scott Turner, announced on February 7, 2025, “I am directing HUD staff to halt any pending or future enforcement actions related to HUD’s 2016 Equal Access Rule.”[50] While the repercussions continue to play out, the most obvious consequences impede transgender individuals’ ability to access HUD funded housing and shelters that align with their gender identity, exacerbating an already existing problem.[51]

Moreover, Trump’s executive order seeks to divest any meaningful reliance the LGBTQ+ community previously placed in HUD to remediate instances of discrimination.[52] Specifically, the order directs the Attorney General to issue guidance to agencies that precludes an expansive reading of Bostock beyond the decision’s application to Title VII.[53] While Bostock remains good law, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission – the agency tasked with enforcement of Title VII – recently moved to dismiss six cases alleging gender-identity discrimination because they now conflict with Trump’s recognition of only two sexes.[54] As a result, the tea leaves read pretty clearly; HUD no longer serves as a viable option for LGBTQ+ individuals to report instances of housing discrimination.

Fair Housing in Illinois with a Specific Focus on Chicago

Fortunately for Illinoisans, the Illinois Human Rights Act (“IHRA”) prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of sexual orientation,[55] also codified in the Cook County Human Rights Ordinance[56] and expanded in the Chicago Fair Housing Ordinance to include gender identity.[57] In spite of these protections, LGBTQ+ individuals continue to experience discrimination in housing, and research suggests that discrimination is more prevalent in states with legislative protections for sexual orientation compared to their counterparts.[58] However, this is not necessarily surprising considering the challenges posed by being openly gay in Chicago following Illinois’ decriminalization of sodomy and the city’s delay in enacting a gay rights bill.[59]

Even less surprising, the national vision of queer urban life has been, and largely still is, white-male-centric to the exclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals who were neither.[60] Following World War II, cities like Chicago witnessed increased populations of gay white men take advantage of already existing housing segregation to further displace racial minorities, all the while enduring sexual segregation.[61] Despite the existence of predominantly LGBTQ+ neighborhoods, colloquially known as gayborhoods (i.e. Boystown), research suggests that LGBTQ+ individuals of color are more likely to reside in Chicago neighborhoods with higher concentrations of racial minorities.[62] As a continuation of the white-male-centric view on queer urban life, Chicago continues to ignore the intersectionality of race and sexual orientation, taking into account that seventy-one percent of the LGBTQ+ advocacy and service organizations are located in majority white areas.[63] This continued segregation and unequal dispersion of resources exacerbates housing concerns for Black LGBTQ+ individuals who experience higher rates of poverty than their white counterparts.[64] Therefore, while Chicago boasts a considerable LGBTQ+ population, a white-centric view further disenfranchises Black LGBTQ+ individuals from the housing market and contributes to contemporary segregation.

Outlets to Report Discrimination

Although housing discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community is an unfortunate reality with no conceivable end in sight, legal remedies, specifically administrative remedies[65], serve as a valid means to combating such discrimination. However, before discussing available legal recourse, it is helpful to understand the types of practices that constitute discrimination based on LGBTQ+ statues. To illustrate, HUD promulgated a non-exhaustive list of practices deemed discriminatory:

• A realtor refuses to show houses listed for sale to a potential buyer because the buyer is transgender.
• A housing provider refuses to rent a house to a same sex couple because of their “family composition,” which is comprised of two individuals of the same sex, rather than two individuals of the opposite sex.
• A maintenance worker employed by a housing provider subjects a female tenant to pervasive harassment because she is a lesbian. Additional discrimination occurs when the tenant reports the harassment to the housing provider who fails to take any action to stop the harassment.
• A tenant is evicted after the housing provider discovers the tenant has dated person of the same sex and identifies as bisexual.
• A same-sex couple asks a realtor to see rental units throughout the city but is only shown rental units in a part of the city known for having many LGBTQ residents.
• A building manager refuses to authorize repairs to a tenant's unit after observing the tenant's teenage daughter holding hands with her girlfriend. The manager explained that he does not agree with the teenager's "homosexual lifestyle" and that the tenant will need to make the repairs himself.
• The leasing manager at a 55+ community rejected a male tenant’s request to add his same sex partner to his lease stating, in writing, that the community only accepts married couples in unions between “one man and one woman.”
• It is unlawful for a landlord or housing provider of a covered dwelling to deny housing because of actual or perceived HIV/AIDS status.
• A housing provider may not refuse to rent to an otherwise qualified LGBTQ family with children under age 18.[66]

Outside of this list, housing discrimination may manifest in a myriad of different forms, and in general, the refusal to rent, sell, negotiate, or provide financing to individuals because of their sexual orientation or gender identity constitutes housing discrimination. Nevertheless, in whatever form discrimination manifests, there are various avenues for LGBTQ+ individuals to assert fair housing rights.

At the federal level, HUD is tasked with accepting and investigating complaints of sex discrimination, which the agency previously interpreted to include sexual orientation and gender identity.[67] As previously mentioned though, HUD no longer serves as a valid outlet for the LGBTQ+ community to report discrimination. Instead, LGBTQ+ Illinoisans must turn to state and local agencies that offer more expansive protections for instances of housing discrimination. One such agency is the Illinois Department of Human Rights (“IDHR”). Once IDHR receives a complaint alleging discrimination, the Department is required to “…conduct a full investigation of the allegations set forth in the charge and complete such investigation within 100 days after the filing of the charge.”[68] Thereafter, a report is prepared to determine “...whether there is substantial evidence that the alleged civil rights violation has been committed.”[69] As defined by statute, “substantial evidence is evidence which a reasonable mind accepts as sufficient to support a particular conclusion and which consists of more than a mere scintilla but may be somewhat less than a preponderance.”[70] By utilizing the substantial evidence standard, individuals are afforded a lower bar to getting their claims investigated as opposed to filing directly in court. To report discrimination to IDHR, click the following link for access to a complaint form: https://dhr.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/dhr/filingacharge/documents/idhr-cis-housing-complainant-information-sheet-3-2023.pdf.

Additionally, at the county level, Cook County has established the Cook County Commission on Human rights (“County Commission”), which is tasked with the enforcement of the Cook County Human Rights Ordinance.[71] However, this agency overlaps and works in conjunction with the Chicago Commission on Human Relations (“Chicago Commission”), which is tasked with enforcement of the Chicago Fair Housing Ordinance.[72] The existence of both agencies often causes confusion for individuals determining with whom to file a complaint; so some clarification is in order. In circumstances where the Chicago Ordinance regulates conduct prohibited by the County Ordinance, the Chicago Commission retains jurisdiction, and complaints may be filed using the following link: https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/cchr/AdjSupportingInfo/AdjFORMS/2023AdjudicationForms/1Complaint%20Form%20-%202023.pdf. However, in scenarios where discriminatory conduct is prohibited only by the Cook County Human Rights Ordinance or occurs outside of Chicago, the County Commission retains jurisdiction, and complaints may be filed using the following link: https://ccchr.my.salesforce-sites.com/Forms/advpm__IntakeForm?formId=a0m8z000000SsC4AAK&formWidth=800px&hh=1.

Importantly, in determining whether to file a complaint of housing discrimination with any of the above agencies, there are statute of limitations that dictate the timeframe in which complaints must be made. If an individual chooses to file with the IDHR, the complainant has two years from the date of the alleged discriminatory practice to file.[73]  In order to file with the Chicago Commission, the complainant has one year from the date of the alleged discriminatory practice to file.[74] Lastly, a complaint filed with the County Commission must be filed within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory conduct.[75]

Some Final Advice

Determining whether to file a complaint of housing discrimination often accompanies significant stress in conjunction with the discriminatory conduct and confusion regarding where to file. In some cases, individuals even refrain from asserting their rights out of fear that discrimination will worsen, or their landlord will retaliate. However, both the FHA and IHRA proscribe additional civil rights violations for retaliation as a result of an individual exercising their fair housing rights.[76] Nevertheless, if individuals continue to experience trepidation about filing a complaint, the University of Illinois at Chicago Fair Housing Legal Support Center and Clinic serves as a readily available resource, offering free legal services to people experiencing housing discrimination. To inquire about legal representation from the Clinic, call (312) 786-2267 or click the following link: https://law.uic.edu/experiential-education/clinics/fairhousing/clients/discrimination-form/.

[1] See Jordan Lewis, A History of Segregation in Chicago, Chicago Business (Feb. 1, 2023) www.chibus.com/perspectives/2023/2/1/a-history-of-segregation-in-chicago (explaining that Chicago remains to be one of the most segregated cities in the country).

[2] See Safe Spaces: Combating Housing Disparities for LGBTQ+ Individuals, Howard Brown Health (June 4, 2024) www://howardbrown.org/combating-housing-disparities/ (stating that homelessness and unstable housing is one of the most significant issues facing the LGBTQ+ community in Chicago).

[3] See Sami Sparber and Brianna Crane, Chicago is a Popular Destination for LGBTQ+ Home Shoppers, AXIOS Chicago (June 15, 2024) (explaining that LGBTQ+ people leaving their states with unfavorable politics are drawn to accepting nature of Chicago).

[4] See Lewis, supra note 1; see also Gillian Branstetter, How Housing Segregation Shaped America’s ‘Gayborhoods’, ACLU (June 6, 2023) www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/how-housing-segregation-shaped-americas-gayborhoods (illustrating how a white-centric view of queer urban life has contributed and continues to contribute to the segregation of racial minorities within the LGBTQ+ community).

[5] Adam P. Romero, Shoshana K. Goldberg, and Luis A. Vasquez, LGBT People and Housing Affordability, Discrimination, and Homelessness, UCLA School of Law Williams Institute, at *4 (April 2020) williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBT-Housing-Apr-2020.pdf

[6] Fair and Equal Housing Act, Human Rights Campaign (Last Updated April 7, 2024) www.hrc.org/resources/fair-and-equal-housing act#:~:text=Only%2022%20states%20and%20the,based%20on%20sexual%20orientation%20only.

[7] See Elizabeth A. Leveno, New Hope for the New Federalism: State Constitutional Challenges to Sodomy Statutes, 62 U. Cin. L. rev. 1029, 1030 (1994) (stating that the United States has a long history of persecuting LGBTQ+ individuals and at the time legal protest to such treatment was a recent development).

[8] Id. at 1035-36.

[9] Ariana Aboulafia, The New John Lawrence: An Analysis of the Criminalization of LGBTQ Homelessness, 19 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J. 199, 210 (2019).

[10] Id.

[11] Id. at 211-12.

[12] Amanda Holpuch, The Supreme Court Struck Down Sodomy Laws 20 Years Ago. Some Still Remain, The New York Times (July 21, 2023) www.nytimes.com/2023/07/21/us/politics/state-anti-sodomy-laws.html.

[13] Id.

[14] See Aboulafia, supra note 9, at 205-06 (explaining that socioeconomic status is the leading factor contributing to homelessness and LGBTQ+ people are prone to experience higher rates of poverty).

[15] Rigel C. Oliveri, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination Claims Under the Fair Housing Act after Bostock v. Clayton, 69 U. Kan. L. Rev. 409, 437 (2021).

[16] Getting Rid of Sodomy Laws: History and Strategy that Led to the Lawrence Decision [hereinafter Getting Rid of Sodomy Laws], ACLU (June 26, 2003) www.aclu.org/documents/getting-rid-sodomy-laws-history-and-strategy-led-lawrence-decision.

[17] Leveno, supra note 7, at 1035.

[18] See Getting Rid of Sodomy Laws, supra note 16 (stating that Connecticut, Colorado, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming repealed their sodomy laws by legislative acts and Alaska and Wisconsin by court decisions).

[19] Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 190 (1986).

[20] Id. at 190-91.

[21] Id. at 191-93.

[22] Id. at 196.

[23] Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 563 (2003).

[24] Id. (internal citation omitted).

[25] Id. at 562, 578.

[26] Holpuch, supra note 12.

[27] See Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 597 U.S. 215, 231 (2022) (“The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely – the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”).

[28] Dobbs, 597 U.S. at 331 (Thomas, J., concurring).

[29] See Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 665 (2015) (“the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples”).

[30] Dobbs, 597 U.S. at 332 (Thomas, J., concurring).

[31] The Chicago Freedom Movement, National Low Income Housing Coalition (Oct. 23, 2018) https://nlihc.org/resource/chicago-freedom-movement; 42 USCS § 3604.

[32] Oliveri, supra note 15, at 413.

[33] Id. at 413-14.

[34] Id. at 414.

[35] Fair and Equal Housing Act, supra note 6.

[36] Compare Ordelli v. Mark Farrell & Assocs., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36094, at 5 (D. Or. Mar. 15, 2013) (“While Oregon state law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in the sale or rental of housing, the FHA does not.”) with Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Cmty., LLC, 901 F.3d 856, 862 (7th Cir., 2018) (applying a previous decision that determined sex encompasses sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination within the meaning of Title VII to the FHA).

[37] Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1738-39 (2020).

[38] Id. at 1742.

[39] Id.

[40] Id. at 1753.

[41] Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205, 209 (1972); Oliveri, supra note 15, at 436-37.

[42] Oliveri, supra note 15, at 431.

[43] Joseph R. Biden, Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation, WH.GOV (Jan. 20, 2021) www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-preventing-and-combating-discrimination-on-basis-of-gender-identity-or-sexual-orientation/.

[44] LGBTQIA+ Fair Housing Toolkit: LGBTQIA+ Protections, HUD EXCHANGE www.hudexchange.info/programs/fair-housing/lgbtqia-fair-housing-toolkit/lgbtqia-protections/ (Last visited Dec. 3, 2024).

[45] See Brandon Wolf, Background on Trump Day One Executive Orders impacting the LGBTQ+ Community, Human Rights Campaign (Jan. 22, 2025) www.hrc.org/press-releases/background-on-trump-day-one-executive-orders-impacting-the-lgbtq-community (discussing Trump’s executive orders that rescind previous executive orders aimed at supporting the LGBTQ+ community and newly enacted ones that target the community).

[46] Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, The White House (Jan. 2025) www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/?utm_source=chatgpt.com.

[47] Accord Kelsey Ables & Mark Johnson, Trump Says there are ‘Two Sexes.’ Experts and Science Say it’s not Binary, The Washington Post (Feb. 19, 2025) www.washingtonpost.com/health/2025/02/16/two-sexes-trump-executive-order-gender-science/; Alicia R. Weigel, Trump’s ‘Biological Truth’ Executive Order is not Based in Biology or Truth, TIME (Jan. 23, 2025) www://time.com/7209300/trumps-biological-truth-executive-order-is-not-true/; Wolf, supra note 45 (explaining that the executive order does not comport with biological realities and fails to recognize the existence of intersex individuals).

[48] Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, supra note 46.

[49] HUD Secretary Turner Halts Equal Access Rule Enforcement, National Low Income Housing Coalition (Feb. 10, 2025) www://nlihc.org/resource/hud-secretary-turner-halts-equal-access-rule-enforcement.

[50] Id.

[51] See Alaina Richert, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Homelessness Post-Bostock, 56 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 217, 218 (2022) (explaining that many transgender people are harassed or sexually or physically assaulted in shelters or thrown out altogether).

[52] Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, supra note 46.

[53] Id.

[54] Edward Helmore, US Civil Rights Agency Seeks to Dismiss Gender-Identity Discrimination Cases, The Guardian (Feb. 15, 2025) www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/15/transgender-equal-employment-opportunity-commission?utm_source=chatgpt.com.

[55] See 775 ILCS 5/3-102 (laying out prohibited discriminatory practices in housing); see also 775 ILCS 5/1-103(Q) (defining unlawful discrimination to include discrimination because of sexual orientation).

[56] See Cook County Municipal Code, § 42-31 (defining unlawful discrimination to include discrimination because of sexual orientation); see also Cook County Municipal Code, § 42-38(b)(1-9) (delineating prohibited practices).

[57] Chicago Municipal Code, § 5-8-020.

[58]  Samantha Friedman, et. al., An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples, US Department of Housing and Urban Development (June 2023) www.huduser.gov/portal/Publications/pdf/Hsg_Disc_against_SameSexCpls_exec_summ_v2.pdf.

[59] See Adam Harrington, The Gay Rights Movement in Illinois: A History, CBS NEWS (last updated June 1, 2011) www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/the-gay-rights-movement-in-illinois-a-history/ (explaining that the frequency of police raids on gay bars increased following the decriminalization of sodomy and Chicago was the last major city to enact a gay rights bill by October of 1987).

[60] Branstetter, supra note 4.

[61] Id.

[62] Kris Rosentel, Alicia VandeVusse & Brandon J. Hill, Racial and Socioeconomic Inequity in the Spatial Distribution of LGBTQ Human Services: An Explanatory Analysis of LGBTQ Services in Chicago, Sex Res Soc Policy (2020) www://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-019-0374-0.

[63] Id.

[64] Lindsay Mahowald, Black LGBTQ Individuals Experience Heightened Levels of Discrimination, CAP 20 (Jul. 13, 2021) www.americanprogress.org/article/black-lgbtq-individuals-experience-heightened-levels-discrimination/#:~:text=As%20a%20result%20of%20such,LGBTQ%20respondents%20reported%20the%20same.

[65] This blog recognizes that aggrieved individuals also have the option to file directly in the circuit court, generally, within two years from the date of the discriminatory conduct. However, administrative processes are often the most difficult to navigate; so this blog attempts to bridge that gap.

[66] Housing Discrimination and Persons Identifying as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and/or Queer/Questioning (LGBTQ), US Department of Housing and Urban Development (last updated Feb. 1, 2022) www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/housing_discrimination_and_persons_identifying_lgbtq.

[67] Id.

[68] 775 ILCS 5/7B-102(C)(1).

[69] 775 ILCS 5/7B-102(D)(2).

[70] 775 ILCS 5/7A-102(D)(2).

[71] Explanation of the Relationship between the Cook County Commission on Human Rights and the City of Chicago Commission on Human Relations, City of Chicago Commission on Human Relations, www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/cchr/AdjSupportingInfo/AdjFORMS/CookCountyCommissionExplanationofRelationship.pdf (last visited Dec. 2, 2024).

[72] Id.

[73] IDHR Extends Statute of Limitations Period, Illinois.gov (Dec. 30, 2024) www.illinois.gov/news/press-release.30775.html#:~:text=About%20the%20Illinois%20Department%20of,Instagram%2C%20Bluesky%2C%20and%20LinkedIn.

[74] Chicago Municipal Code § 2-160-030(b).

[75] Cook County Code § 42-34(c).

[76] 42 USCS § 3617; 775 ILCS 5/6-101(B).