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

942 chars

Even if it were appropriate to look at legislative history, it would not help respondents. The en banc Court of Appeals relied on two passages from a 1990 Senate Report on a proposed amendment to the eviction provision. 237 F. 3d, at 1123 (citing S. Rep. No. 101-316 (1990)). But this Report was commenting on language from a Senate version of the 1990 amendment, which was never enacted. The language in the Senate version, which would have imposed a different standard of cause for eviction for drug-related crimes than the unqualified language of § 1437d(Z)(6), see 136 Cong. Rec. 15991, 16012 (1990) (reproducing S. 566, 101st Cong., 2d Sess., §§ 521(f)'and 714(a) (1990)), was rejected at Conference. See H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 101-943, p. 418 (1990). And, as the dissent from the en banc decision below explained, the passages may plausibly be read as a mere suggestion about how local public housing authorities should exercise the “wide

Other Sections in This Document (59)

Full Text