Michigan HOA Religious Displays

Section 1: Overview — How religious displays are regulated in Michigan HOAs

Michigan has no statute that specifically governs religious displays in community associations. Religious items on doors, doorframes, and in yards are regulated instead by the federal Fair Housing Act, the state Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, and the recorded declaration or master deed — the CC&Rs.¹ A common and consequential misconception holds that the First Amendment constrains association display rules. It generally doesn't, because a private community association isn't a state actor, and the First Amendment restrains government, not private parties. The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b), sets the operative federal floor. It reaches associations acting as housing providers and bars discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of housing, and in the provision of services or facilities, because of religion.² Michigan's parallel protection is the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq., enforced by the Michigan Department of Civil Rights and substantially equivalent to the federal statute.³ Day to day, architectural, aesthetic, and holiday-decoration covenants govern what residents may display, but fair housing law constrains those covenants, which can't be applied in a way that discriminates on the basis of religion. Nationally, only a minority of states — eight in total — have passed display-specific statutes that expressly bar associations from prohibiting religious items on doors and doorframes, and Michigan isn't one of them.⁴ The sections ahead set out the three-layer framework, the compliance obligations it creates, recent activity, and where Michigan sits nationally.

Section 2: The legal framework

2A. The First Amendment threshold and the federal Fair Housing Act

The threshold point is jurisdictional: the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Free Speech clauses restrain government, not private community associations. A homeowners association or condominium association enforcing a display covenant isn't a state actor, so a resident generally can't assert a First Amendment right against the association. A few states recognize narrow free-speech protections under their own constitutions in limited private settings — New Jersey is the leading example — but that's an outlier line of authority, not the federal baseline or the Michigan rule. The constraint on Michigan associations comes from anti-discrimination housing law instead.

The operative federal statute is the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. Section 3604(b) makes it unlawful to discriminate in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with a dwelling, because of religion, among other protected classes.² Courts and HUD treat community associations as housing providers subject to this prohibition. Two theories of liability apply to religious-display disputes. Disparate treatment covers a rule, or its enforcement, that targets a religion — permitting secular items on doors while ordering removal of a mezuzah, say. Disparate impact covers a facially neutral rule that falls more heavily on the adherents of a religion, such as a blanket ban on all door attachments that prevents observant Jewish residents from affixing a mezuzah. The Supreme Court recognized disparate-impact liability under the Fair Housing Act in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, 576 U.S. 519 (2015).⁵

The leading door-display precedent is Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2009) (en banc), where the Seventh Circuit held that a condominium association's enforcement of a hallway rule to remove residents' mezuzot could support a Fair Housing Act claim.⁶ Bloch is a Seventh Circuit decision; in Michigan, which sits in the Sixth Circuit, it's persuasive, not binding. HUD's rule at 24 C.F.R. § 100.7 addresses when a housing provider is directly or vicariously liable for discriminatory housing practices, including the failure to take prompt action to correct a discriminatory practice the provider knew about and had the power to correct.⁷ The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., is a government land-use statute that constrains zoning and landmarking by government bodies; it generally doesn't apply to a private association's display restrictions.⁸

2B. Michigan law: the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and the absence of a display statute

Michigan's fair housing law is the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq., with housing provisions in Article 5 beginning at MCL 37.2501. Section 37.2502 prohibits a person engaging in a real estate transaction from discriminating against a person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the transaction or in the furnishing of facilities or services, on the basis of religion, among other protected characteristics.⁹ The Act declares the opportunity to obtain housing without discrimination a civil right, at MCL 37.2102, and lists protected classes including religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, and marital status.¹⁰ The Michigan Department of Civil Rights enforces it, and the Act runs substantially equivalent to the federal Fair Housing Act. It parallels the federal statute on religion and contains no display-specific provision.

Michigan hasn't enacted a religious-display statute of the kind found in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, Rhode Island, and Texas.⁴ Nothing in Michigan law expressly bars an association from prohibiting religious items on doors, doorframes, or in yards.

Governance sits atop this fair-housing floor. The Michigan Condominium Act, MCL 559.101 et seq. (Act 59 of 1978), governs condominiums, including the site condominium — a form widely used for detached single-family developments in which each owner holds a condominium unit consisting of a building site.¹¹ Michigan's Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs describes a site condominium as "a condominium development with single-family detached housing instead of two or more housing units in one structure," and confirms that such developments must comply with the Act.¹² Many Michigan communities that function like a traditional homeowners association are, in fact, statutory condominiums under this Act. Non-condominium homeowners associations aren't governed by a dedicated Michigan HOA statute; they operate under recorded covenants, the Michigan Nonprofit Corporation Act, MCL 450.2101 et seq., for corporate formalities, and common law.¹³ None of these contains a religious-display provision. The Condominium Act's only display-specific provision is MCL 559.156a, which provides that "[a] developer or association of co-owners shall not prohibit a co-owner from displaying a single United States flag of a size not greater than 3 feet by 5 feet anywhere on the exterior of the co-owner's condominium unit" — there's no comparable religious-item provision.¹⁴

2C. CC&Rs, architectural controls, and the limits on enforcement

In practice, Michigan associations regulate displays through the recorded declaration or master deed and the rules adopted under it: architectural and aesthetic covenants, limits on holiday decorations, and sign or flag rules. Those provisions work as enforceable contract terms binding on owners who take title subject to the recorded documents, but the federal Fair Housing Act and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act constrain them — an otherwise valid covenant can't be applied in a way that discriminates on the basis of religion.

The line the cases draw turns on the difference between decoration and religious obligation. Applying a display rule to purely decorative or seasonal items is generally lawful. The same rule becomes a liability risk when it prevents an observant adherent from fulfilling a religious obligation — affixing a mezuzah to a doorpost, say — because a facially neutral ban that forecloses that practice can generate disparate-impact exposure, and disparate-treatment exposure too if enforced selectively. The drafting principle that lowers risk: a facially neutral rule, consistently enforced across faiths and secular displays, that leaves a workable pathway for religious items.

Order of precedence matters when documents conflict. Federal and state fair housing law sits above the recorded declaration or master deed; the declaration or master deed sits above the bylaws; and the bylaws sit above board-adopted rules. The operational takeaway for Michigan: the working rulebook is the declaration or master deed, read against the federal and state fair housing floor, and the analysis stays the same whether the community is a site condominium or a non-condominium homeowners association.

Section 3: Compliance obligations created by the framework

The framework produces four categories of obligation. Fair-housing obligations — federal and state — apply to Michigan associations regardless of community type, including site condominiums. The condominium, site-condominium, and non-condominium distinction that matters for the governing-statute analysis doesn't change the fair-housing analysis; only the governing-document and procedural framing varies.

A. Anti-discrimination obligations

An association must not treat one religion's displays worse than another's or worse than comparable secular items, and it must not single out specific religious symbols for removal. That flows from the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b),² and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2502.⁹ Boards should apply display and decoration rules evenhandedly across faiths and secular displays, and stay aware that a facially neutral rule effectively excluding observant adherents can create disparate-impact exposure under Inclusive Communities.⁵

B. Holiday-decoration and multi-faith obligations

Decoration policies governing timing, size, and placement should account for multiple faith calendars, not only Christian holidays, and should treat religious and secular seasonal displays evenhandedly — that obligation flows from the same federal and state anti-discrimination duties, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b) and MCL 37.2502.² A policy that permits secular seasonal decorations while restricting comparable religious ones invites a disparate-treatment claim.

C. Rule-drafting and governing-document obligations

Display and architectural rules should stay facially neutral as to religion and avoid naming specific symbols, and any restriction should rest on a documented, legitimate, non-discriminatory aesthetic or safety rationale. That obligation flows from the Fair Housing Act and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act as applied to the CC&Rs.⁹ A documented neutral rationale is exactly what lets an association defend a facially neutral rule that has a disparate impact under the Inclusive Communities framework.⁵

D. Notice, hearing, and enforcement obligations

Before fining a co-owner or compelling removal of a display, a condominium association must follow the notice-and-hearing procedure in its governing documents and the Condominium Act — MCL 559.206 authorizes fines against co-owners only "after notice and hearing thereon."¹⁵ That obligation flows from the governing statute, the Michigan Condominium Act, and the master deed for condominiums and site condominiums, or from the recorded declaration, the Michigan Nonprofit Corporation Act, and common law for non-condominium homeowners associations. A procedurally defective enforcement action is both unenforceable on its own terms and compounds fair-housing exposure if the underlying display is religious.

Section 4: Recent legislative and judicial activity

Michigan has had no notable religious-display-specific activity in community associations during the relevant windows. This section runs short, reflecting the absence of activity rather than a gap in research.

A. Recent bills

A review of the 2023-2024 and 2025-2026 Michigan legislative sessions turned up no bill that would govern religious displays in community associations or create a religious-item display protection comparable to the statutes in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, Rhode Island, and Texas. The only display-protection provision in Michigan community-association law remains MCL 559.156a, which addresses the United States flag and predates these sessions.¹⁴

B. Recent rulings

A review of federal decisions from the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and of Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court decisions, turned up no ruling over the past 36 months applying the Fair Housing Act or the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to religious displays or religious discrimination by a Michigan community association. The leading door-display authority remains Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2009) — Seventh Circuit precedent, persuasive but not binding in Michigan.⁶

C. Active legislative debates

No Michigan proposal toward a religious-display statute is pending. Nationally, the trend keeps running toward more states adopting display-specific statutes protecting religious items on doors and doorframes, most recently Nevada, whose SB 201 took effect July 1, 2025 and is codified at NRS 116.323.¹⁶

Section 5: National positioning and related coverage

On religious displays, states fall into two broad categories. A minority — eight states — have passed display-specific statutes that expressly bar associations from prohibiting religious items on doors and doorframes: California (Civil Code § 4706),¹⁷ Colorado (C.R.S. § 38-33.3-106.5(1)(c.5)),¹⁸ Connecticut (General Statutes § 47-230a),¹⁹ Florida (Florida Statutes § 718.113(6), for condominiums),²⁰ Illinois (765 ILCS 605/18.4(h), for condominiums),²¹ Nevada (NRS 116.323, added by SB 201 of 2025),¹⁶ Rhode Island (R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-37-5.5),²² and Texas (Property Code § 202.018, which after its 2021 amendment bars an association from prohibiting a religious display "on the owner's or resident's property or dwelling").²³ The majority of states, including Michigan, have no such statute, and there religious displays are governed by the federal Fair Housing Act and state fair housing law instead. For a multi-state operator, the practical takeaway is that the Fair Housing Act floor stays uniform nationwide, while the statute states layer door- and doorframe-specific — and sometimes yard-display — rules on top of it. Michigan has no pending legislation toward such a statute.

This coverage updates quarterly as the legislature, the Michigan courts, and the federal courts act. The federal Fair Housing Act is the operative federal framework for this topic, and other federal frameworks — the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, and the FCC's OTARD rule — also apply to Michigan associations.

Footnotes

1. 42 U.S.C. § 3604, Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives ↩
2. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b), Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
3. Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Act 453 of 1976 (MCL 37.2101 et seq.), Michigan Legislature ↩
4. Comparison statutes: Cal. Civ. Code § 4706; C.R.S. § 38-33.3-106.5; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-230a; Fla. Stat. § 718.113(6); 765 ILCS 605/18.4(h); NRS 116.323; R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-37-5.5; Tex. Prop. Code § 202.018 (see footnotes 16-23 for primary-source links) ↩ ↩
5. Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519 (2015), slip opinion, U.S. Department of Justice ↩ ↩ ↩
6. Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2009) (en banc), CourtListener ↩ ↩
7. 24 C.F.R. § 100.7, Liability for discriminatory housing practices, eCFR ↩
8. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, Protection of land use as religious exercise (RLUIPA), Office of the Law Revision Counsel ↩
9. MCL 37.2502, Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Michigan Legislature ↩ ↩ ↩
10. MCL 37.2102, Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Michigan Legislature ↩
11. Michigan Condominium Act, Act 59 of 1978 (MCL 559.101 et seq.), Michigan Legislature ↩
12. The Condominium Buyer's Handbook, Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs ↩
13. Nonprofit Corporation Act, Act 162 of 1982 (MCL 450.2101 et seq.), Michigan Legislature ↩
14. MCL 559.156a, Displaying United States flag on condominium unit, Michigan Legislature ↩ ↩
15. MCL 559.206, Default by co-owner; relief, Michigan Legislature ↩
16. NRS 116.323, Right of unit's owner to display religious or cultural items; Nevada SB 201 (2025), Nevada Legislature ↩ ↩
17. California Civil Code § 4706, Display of religious items on entry door or entry door frame ↩
18. Colorado Revised Statutes § 38-33.3-106.5(1)(c.5) ↩
19. Connecticut General Statutes § 47-230a ↩
20. Florida Statutes § 718.113(6), The Florida Senate ↩
21. 765 ILCS 605/18.4(h), Illinois Condominium Property Act ↩
22. R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-37-5.5, Freedom of Condominium Owners and Apartment Renters to Display Certain Religious Items ↩
23. Texas Property Code § 202.018, Regulation of Display of Certain Religious Items ↩