explaining that in determining whether statutes and regulations limit official discretion, court is to look for “ ‘ “explicitly mandatory language,” i.e., specific directives to the decisionmaker that if the regulations’ substantive predicates are present, a particular outcome must follow.’ ”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that in determining whether statutes and regulations limit official discretion, court is to look for “ ‘ “explicitly mandatory language,” i.e., specific directives to the decisionmaker that if the regulations’ substantive predicates are present, a particular outcome must follow.’ ”
- finding it unlikely that applicants for FEMA rental assistance had a property interest in those benefits because neither statutes nor regulations contained “‘explicitly mandatory language’ that entitles an individual to receive benefits if he satisfies that criteria”
- holding that the statutes and regulations governing Federal Emergency Management Agency did not create a property interest in enforcement where “mandatory language is wholly absent”
- determining whether "property interest in a stream of benefits" was created by statutes, regulations, and agency practices that would entitle recipient to "receive recurring ... payments upon an initial showing of eligibility"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DENNIS, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring and concurring in the judgment:
I concur in Parts I, II, III-A, and IV of the majority opinion and in the judgment. I do not think it necessary or desirable to reach the subjects in Part III-B and therefore do not join it.