The Supreme Court is set to take up the most consequential housing and lending decision in modern U.S. history.
If the justices uphold the Affordable Care Act, the Affordable Housing Act, or any other key elements of the Affordable Financing Act (which includes Section 4) they will be the first court in history to overturn a major aspect of that landmark legislation.
That, in turn, could affect millions of Americans across the country.
In the process, it could have a significant impact on the future of affordable housing, and on the health of the American economy.
Here’s a look at some of the implications and how the Supreme Courts decision will impact millions of families, and their families, across the United States.
Who could be affected?
If the Supreme court upholds the Affordable Homes Act, it would affect the vast majority of American households.
Most Americans who qualify for subsidized mortgages will have the ability to refinance, and they’ll have access to home equity lines of credit, too.
But if the justices overturn the ACA, and Section 4, which guarantees affordable mortgages, is gutted, millions of American families will likely lose their housing rights and access to affordable loans.
The ACA would have required the government to make available to eligible borrowers a minimum amount of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) or mortgage-title insurance (MBI), and the government would have been required to make a certain percentage of mortgages available to all eligible borrowers.
The government also would have provided loans to borrowers at a fixed rate, as well as at an income-based discount.
The new system would have allowed borrowers to refortify at lower rates than those currently required.
But it would have left out some key provisions that make the new system more affordable and provide the government with a better shot at attracting and retaining borrowers.
For example, Section 4 requires that lenders make a minimum of 10% of a borrower’s income on loans that are paid off with government funds, even if that borrower is not eligible for subsidized mortgage.
The federal government also was required to set a minimum loan size based on income, so that those borrowers who are in the middle of their incomes or in families with low incomes would not be forced to pay more than a certain amount of monthly payments.
Under the ACA’s “cost-sharing reduction” provision, the government made a similar reduction in mortgage interest rates.
This was intended to make it easier for borrowers to qualify for mortgages at lower costs.
The Supreme court would have overturned these rules under the Affordable Home Equity Loans Program, which provides loans to families with incomes of up to 400% of the federal poverty line (FPL) who are eligible for subsidies to buy homes.
Section 4 of the ACA also guarantees mortgages to borrowers who have already paid off their mortgages, and that section of the law requires that mortgages be paid off in full each month.
If this is eliminated, tens of millions of low-income families could be without mortgages.
Without a home equity line of credit to refinances, the affordability of many families’ mortgage loans would decline.
For low- and moderate-income borrowers, the impact could be even greater, because many are expected to use government subsidies to make payments on their mortgage debt.
For middle-income and higher-income households, the new rules would also make it harder for them to refredit mortgages that are currently under-performing, as many borrowers would have to wait until the mortgage is in default before they could refinance.
If Section 4 is repealed, low- to moderate- and high-income homeowners could be left without affordable mortgages or at risk of defaulting on their mortgages.
But many other households in the lower income brackets would be affected.
For the most part, the most vulnerable groups in the country would be the most affected.
Low- and middle-class households in particular would be at the highest risk for losing their home equity, and the federal government would be required to help them pay off their mortgage.
But the Supreme will have a chance to decide whether to hear this case.
The Affordable Home Financing Program was designed to help people pay off the mortgages on their homes with the government’s money, but the government is not required to assist them in doing so.
In a statement, the Department of Housing and Urban Development said the federal program provides a range of assistance to help low-wage and moderate income households with mortgages.
“While we recognize that many people will not qualify for the subsidy due to other financial circumstances, we recognize this is a program designed to assist people in paying off their homes,” the statement said.
In its brief supporting Section 4’s repeal, the Trump administration said Section 4 has made “great strides in helping lower-income Americans pay their mortgages.”
The government is also fighting the Affordable Mortgage Interest Rebate program, which allows households to get subsidized mortgage loans at reduced rates, and to refinancing their mortgages at higher rates.
Section 5 of the health law also allows households with incomes