This bill amends the CARES Act by striking subsection (c) of Section 4024 (codified at 15 U.S.C. 9058), which -- as described in the bill text -- imposes a federal requirement on lessors to provide a notice to vacate. The change deletes that federal notice mandate without adding a replacement federal standard.
The practical effect is to remove a specific federal-layer notice obligation for landlords covered by Section 4024 and leave notice requirements to state and local law and any other applicable federal statutes. That shift matters to landlords, tenants, property managers, state courts, and agencies because it alters which rules govern the opening step of many eviction processes and creates potential variability across jurisdictions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill deletes subsection (c) of Section 4024 of the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9058), eliminating the federal requirement that lessors provide a notice to vacate. It does not add new notice language or substitute a federal replacement.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties are lessors and tenants governed by Section 4024 of the CARES Act, as well as property managers, mortgage servicers for federally backed loans, and state and local housing enforcement authorities that administer eviction processes.
Why It Matters
By removing a federal notice requirement, the bill reduces federal intervention in landlord-tenant notice procedures and increases reliance on state and local eviction law, creating potential regulatory divergence and transitional uncertainty for stakeholders who relied on the CARES Act provision.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill performs one narrow, technical amendment: it strikes subsection (c) from Section 4024 of the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9058). That subsection -- identified in the bill as a federal requirement on lessors to provide a notice to vacate -- will no longer be part of federal law once this bill takes effect.
The statute otherwise remains unchanged; the bill does not define a new federal notice period or create federal enforcement mechanisms to replace the removed requirement.
Removing the subsection means that landlords and property managers who had been subject to the federal notice requirement will no longer need to follow that specific federal rule; instead, eviction notices and the preliminary steps for recovering possession of rental units will be governed by state and local law and any other applicable federal statutes. For jurisdictions that had relied on the CARES Act handle as a baseline, the change shifts compliance decisions back to local standards and court procedures.Because the bill is silent on retroactivity and on how concurrent federal provisions should be read, implementation will be straightforward in many cases but ambiguous in others.
Practically, parties will need to determine whether any other federal obligations remain (for example, rules tied to federally backed mortgages or emergency federal orders) and whether state law provides minimum notice protections that exceed the deleted federal requirement. Landlords who relied on the CARES Act subsection for a particular procedural approach may lose that federal shield; tenants who received notice under the federal rule prior to repeal could still have standing in state courts depending on local law and timing of filings.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill strikes subsection (c) of Section 4024 of the CARES Act, which imposed a federal notice-to-vacate requirement on lessors (codified at 15 U.S.C. 9058).
The change deletes the federal notice requirement entirely; the bill does not replace it with any new federal notice period or procedural standard.
Affected lessors are those covered by Section 4024 of the CARES Act — the statute remains the same except for the removed subsection.
The amendment returns notice-to-vacate regulation primarily to state and local landlord-tenant regimes and any other applicable federal laws, increasing jurisdictional variation.
The bill contains no express retroactivity clause or enforcement language tied to the removal, leaving questions about ongoing or pending eviction actions unresolved.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — 'Respect State Housing Laws Act'
This section simply names the bill. The title signals the statutory purpose: to defer to state housing laws by removing a federal notice requirement. The title itself has no operative legal effect but frames the bill's intent in statutory interpretation and advocacy contexts.
Amendment to Section 4024 of the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9058)
This is the operative clause: it instructs the federal code editor to strike subsection (c) from Section 4024. Mechanically, the textual removal eliminates whatever federal duty subsection (c) imposed on lessors, without altering adjacent subsections or adding replacement language. That means any specific federal procedural rule formerly set out in subsection (c) no longer binds parties after the statute is amended.
Practical scope of the deletion
Because the bill removes only one subsection and does not define terms or add transitional rules, practical scope turns on how Section 4024 interacts with other statutes and emergency orders. For example, if other federal provisions continue to condition assistance or mortgage forbearance on landlord notices, those connections must be read against the absence of subsection (c). Courts and agencies will determine whether the deletion creates gaps, whether state rules immediately govern, and how pending notices and filings are treated.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Private lessors and property managers — They gain flexibility because the federal notice-to-vacate requirement no longer constrains eviction timing or notice form; operators of rental portfolios and management companies avoid a layer of federal compliance.
- Owners of properties with federally backed financing who sought streamlined possession remedies — Removing the federal notice reduces one federal procedural hurdle they previously navigated.
- State and local governments and courts — They regain primary control over landlord-tenant notice standards and enforcement priorities, allowing local policy choices to drive eviction procedures.
Who Bears the Cost
- Tenants covered by Section 4024 — They lose a federal-level notice protection and may face earlier proceedings under state eviction regimes that provide shorter notices.
- Housing and tenant-advocacy organizations — They may need to pivot compliance and assistance work to varying state rules, and will likely see increased demand where federal protections are removed.
- Local court systems and legal aid providers — They may bear transitional burdens from altered filing patterns, disputes over whether federal notice requirements applied to pending cases, and increased need for dispute resolution resources.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate aims against each other: preserving uniform federal protections for tenants during housing stress versus restoring state control over landlord-tenant procedures and reducing federal regulatory burdens on lessors; resolving that trade-off favors either nationwide consistency for vulnerable renters or devolved flexibility for property owners and state policymakers, but not both simultaneously.
The key implementation questions are legal and temporal. First, striking a federal subsection that required a notice does not itself clarify whether other federal requirements or emergency orders still impose notice obligations; interpreting courts will need to reconcile remaining CARES Act language with the deletion.
Second, the bill contains no retroactivity rule, so parties will litigate whether notices issued or actions started while subsection (c) was in force keep the protections of that provision or revert to state law. That uncertainty could generate short-term litigation and inconsistent rulings by district courts.
A second tension concerns federal preemption and uniformity versus local tailoring. The deleted subsection served as a uniform federal floor (however narrow); its removal produces a patchwork of state and local notice rules.
That result may be efficient for states that prefer stricter rules, but it also creates compliance burdens for nationwide landlords and for servicers of federally backed mortgages who operate across jurisdictions. Finally, the bill does not address enforcement: with the federal text gone, federal remedies tied specifically to that notice vanish, shifting enforcement to state remedies and remedies tied to other federal statutes (if any).
That shift could reduce federal oversight capacity during future national housing stresses.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.