Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (2002)

Citation: Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (2002)
Parent Document: Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (2002)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2002-03-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/118490/department-of-housing-and-urban-... ↗

Full Text

985 chars

at 1126. But this interpretation runs counter to basic rules of grammar. The disjunctive “or” means that the qualification applies only to “other person.” Indeed, the view that “under the tenant’s control” modifies everything coming before it in the sentence would result in the nonsensical reading that the statute applies to “a public housing tenant . . . under the tenant’s control.” HUD offers a convincing explanation for the grammatical imperative that “under the tenant’s control” modifies only “other person”: “by ‘control,’ the statute means control in the sense that the tenant has permitted access to the premises.” 66 Fed. Reg. 28781 (2001). Implicit in the terms “household member” or “guest” is that access to the premises has been granted by the tenant. Thus, the plain language of § 1437d(Z)(6) requires leases that grant public housing authorities the discretion to terminate tenancy without regard to the tenant’s knowledge of the drug-related criminal activity. *132

Other Sections in This Document (59)

Full Text