holding that a public housing authority may terminate benefits conferred by section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. § 1437f, for the violent criminal activity of a family member without having to prove that the violent criminal activity threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents
How later courts described this case
- holding that a public housing authority may terminate benefits conferred by section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. § 1437f, for the violent criminal activity of a family member without having to prove that the violent criminal activity threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents
- explaining that if the “PHA approves the tenancy, the PHA and the owner enter into a [HAP] contract . . . under which the PHA makes rental payments to subsidize occupancy,” and, in turn, “the owner and the now-Section 8 participant enter into a lease for the subsidized unit”
- holding public housing authority may terminate Section 8 benefits for violent crime of family member without having to prove that the activity threatens health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment
- because Congress, in enacting Section 8 of the United States Housing Act, did not speak to the question of whether a public housing authority may lawfully terminate the lease of a public housing tenant if a member of the tenant’s household or guest engages in drug related activity without the tenant’s actual or reasonable knowledge, examination of other factors to discern Congress’s intent, including the interpretation of the agency responsible for implementing the Housing Act, was warranted
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice NIGRO,
concurring.
I join in the holding and analysis of the majority, and write separately solely to emphasize that although HUD regulations authorize a PHA to terminate Section 8 benefits for violent criminal activity of a family member, they by no means require PHAs to do so. Compare 24 C.F.R. § 982.553 (b)(l)(ii)(PHA “must immediately” terminate assistance when a household member has been convicted of drug-related criminal activity on the premises of federally assisted housing) with 24 C.F.R. § 982.553 (b)(2)(PHA need only establish standards that “allow” the PHA to terminate assistance if a household member has engaged in violent criminal activity). In fact, the regulations make clear that in exercising its discretion to determine whether to terminate assistance, the PHA:
may consider all relevant circumstances such as the seriousness of the case, the extent of participation or culpability of individual family members, mitigating circumstances related to the disability of a family member, and the effects of denial or termination of assistance on other family members who were not involved in the action or failure.
24 C.F.R. § 982.552 (c)(2)®. Moreover, when only certain family members are culpable for the criminal activity giving rise to the threat of termination, the PHA is specifically authorized to:
impose, as a condition of continued assistance for other family members, a requirement that other family members who participated in or were culpable for the action or failure will not reside in the unit. The PHA may permit other *578 members of a participant family to continue receiving assistance.
24 C.F.R. § 982.552 (c)(2)(ii).
Given these additional regulations, I believe that it is incumbent on PHAs to consider “all relevant circumstances” before terminating a family’s assistance based on the errant conduct of less than all of its members.