As extreme heat worsens, renters are gaining a ‘right to cooling’

Subjecting the incarcerated residents of Texas to extreme heat constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, and prisons statewide must install air conditioning by the end of 2029.

Although the ruling Judge Robert Pitman issued last month is unique in its invocation of the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment, it is an explicit recognition of an idea increasingly reflected in laws and policies nationwide: As extreme heat becomes more dangerous, even deadly, access to cooling is increasingly seen as a necessity rather than a luxury. This shift has been especially active in housing, where renters often face structural hurdles to accessing cool air, from high costs to explicit bans on the installation of air conditioning.

This summer, jurisdictions across the U.S. passed policies setting maximum indoor temperatures, requiring landlords to provide AC, or otherwise expanding tenants’ access to cooling. The state of Maryland, for instance, said property owners with 10 or more units must install AC if they renovate. In Spokane, Washington, where 14 people died during a heat wave in July, landlords must now provide “adequate cooling” in at least one room of each unit.

“You can no longer responsibly rent a place if you don’t have a way of keeping it cool, because people will die,” said Brian Henning, director of the Institute for Climate, Water, and the Environment at Gonzaga University and a leading advocate for the Spokane policy.

Indeed, a study from 2024 found that renters were three times more likely than homeowners to need medical attention due to heat exposure at home, and researchers estimate as many as 50,000 people died during the five heat waves Europe experienced this summer. But unlike the incarcerated in Texas, whose protection rests on the Eighth Amendment, renters’ claim to safe indoor temperatures rests on a different and less explicit legal foundation.

It’s based, in part, on the “implied warranty of habitability,” a legal principle requiring landlords to provide the basic necessities for life — things like running water — even when they aren’t explicitly guaranteed in a lease or by law. Heating has long been understood as part of that warranty. As extreme heat poses an increasing threat to health, advocates argue that protection from dangerously high indoor temperatures should be as well.

“You can’t run a place without heat,” said Doug Ruley, director of the Environmental Justice Clinic at the University of Miami School of Law. “The same is exactly true for cooling. I think the rights framing is powerful, and very consistent with how we Americans tend to think about things we care about.”

Tenants could, in theory, ask courts to recognize heat protection as part of the implied warranty of habitability. But rather than rely on judges, advocates have largely pursued explicit protections through housing codes and landlord-tenant laws. 

Exactly what those protections should guarantee — and how they are implemented — is far from settled.

The first question is whether they should require air conditioning, as the ruling in Texas does, or simply establish a maximum allowable indoor temperature that property owners can comply with however they see fit. Clinton Andrews, director of the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University, believes the latter approach could encourage passive, energy-efficient methods, like planting trees or installing window shades. A well-designed performance standard also makes clear exactly what landlords are expected to achieve. Unlike a law that simply requires them to install AC or provide “adequate cooling,” a temperature threshold gives tenants and regulators something concrete to measure against.

Such a standard still requires deciding how hot is too hot, and there’s no universally accepted science on this. Some jurisdictions have settled on 82 degrees Fahrenheit. Others, like several cities in Canada, are exploring a limit closer to 79 degrees F. Stefano Schiavon, a professor of architecture and civil and environmental engineering at the University of California Berkeley, said this is to some extent influenced by physiology and culture because people regularly exposed to high temperatures can more readily adapt to hotter weather.

The same flexibility that appeals to Andrews, however, can also be a liability. Some housing advocates worry that a performance standard could allow a landlord to avoid providing the most effective — and costly — means of cooling: air conditioning.

“The only intervention that is going to protect people’s lives in a heat event is AC,” said Chelsea Kirk, advocacy and policy director for the south-L.A. nonprofit Strategic Actions for a Just Economy. During a major heat wave, she added, “tree shade is not gonna get us there.”

Jurisdictions are already experimenting with different approaches. Houston’s right-to-cooling ordinance, approved in August, requires AC. It establishes air conditioning as a health and safety standard for all rental housing, closing a loophole that had allowed landlords to forgo it in apartments with window screens. Spokane, Washington, stops short of requiring AC, but says landlords must reimburse their tenants up to $500 if they want to install it themselves.

Los Angeles County has taken the performance-standard approach in its unincorporated communities. Beginning January 1, landlords must provide a “safe and code-complaint method” of maintaining a maximum indoor air temperature of 82 degrees F. The city of Los Angeles voted in February to explore a similar measure, though adoption has been delayed.

Other jurisdictions have adopted variations on these protections. Since 2020, Austin, Texas; New Orleans, and New York City have passed cooling requirements, while Washington and Oregon have barred landlords from prohibiting tenants from installing their own AC units. In Arizona, the attorney general’s aggressive interpretation of housing laws has established what amounts to a de facto statewide AC requirement.

Read Next

Henning said he’s been in talks with advocacy groups and state legislators about taking Spokane’s right-to-cooling policy statewide, while lawmakers and officials elsewhere in the U.S. and Canada are weighing similar measures.

One hurdle advocates will likely continue to face is cost. Landlords argue cooling requirements will lead to higher rents, though researchers say there’s scant evidence to support that. Some tenant advocates and other experts worry greater reliance on AC could mean higher utility bills. Supporters of such mandates concede that is a significant concern, but not a reason to deprive people of AC.

“Tenants can make their own choices. I don’t think somebody’s going to be, like, ‘Well, I’d rather risk dying tonight because I don’t want to turn on the AC,” said Michele Thomas, director of policy and advocacy for the nonprofit Washington State Housing Alliance.

C.J. Gabbe, an associate professor of environmental studies and sciences at Santa Clara University, said one way to help cover cooling costs would be to expand the federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. The Trump administration fired the federal staff that administered the program last year and has proposed eliminating it, but Congress continues funding it. This month, the administration released about $3.6 billion for the current fiscal year.

Experts Grist spoke with stressed that expanding access to cooling can’t be a substitute for addressing the climate change that is making it increasingly necessary. Ultimately, Henning said, governments must address the underlying causes of the crisis by stopping the burning of fossil fuels. “Otherwise, these problems will continue to outstrip our ability to address them,” he told Grist. “We can’t just AC the world.”

---