Newport Beach is one of the richest cities in California. If you lived there, you'd assume you wouldn't have any reason to throw a tantrum. But then again, for some NIMBYs, there's no excuse too small to try to block housing. An initiative slated for the November 2026 ballot would toss out a zoning plan that tooks years for the city’s staff to write and is already approved by the state for one cobbled together by local NIMBYs that would allow a fraction of the housing the city needs to be built. 

A case about criminal sentencing may be the key to enforcing statewide zoning reforms.

Late December, Colorado housing advocates won a victory in an unexpected place: a criminal court decision by the state supreme court. Following the logic of that decision, state courts should find that housing reforms are not only good policy; they are supported by well-established legal principles.

A ruling at the tail end of 2025 brought with it a rebuke of the few things NIMBYs hold dear: their money and their anti-housing philosophy. 

In 2020, the small coastal city of Pacifica, California approved eight units of housing, and opponents spent five years fighting to kill the projects. They lost, but they didn’t stop there: the next step was to charge the city $1.2 million in legal fees on the basis that stalling new housing was a service to the public. Thanks in part to YIMBY Law, they lost that argument, too, and will not be rewarded for their years-long effort to block new homes.

YIMBY Law has created a new report that provides a powerful legal tool for challenging exclusionary zoning in the Keystone State. The report, The Pennsylvania Fair Share Doctrine: Excluding multi-family housing developments is already illegal in many Pennsylvania cities, details a decades-old legal principle that requires municipalities to provide their “fair share” of housing, particularly multi-family homes.

On August 6, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) abruptly withdrew from two major civil rights enforcement actions in Chicago. The cases concerned housing discrimination, and another addressed environmental racism from the siting of a metal shredding facility on the South Side. Both cases were nearing resolution after years of work from local and federal officials, and in both cases HUD had already determined that Chicago had engaged in unlawful discrimination. The administration justified this withdrawal, saying it would focus on “real concerns,” signaling that HUD’s own finding of racism in land use practices is not a concern for the current leadership.

This decision marks a serious setback for civil rights enforcement in Chicago and across the nation.