DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 8

Citation
Section 8
Parent Document
Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 874 F.3d 98 (2017)
Effective Date
2017-10-18
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4435296/theodore-hayes-v-philip-harvey/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (260)

Full Text

1,937 chars 
25
       We further acknowledge that, in the framework of non-
binding Skidmore deference that the dissent references, an
agency may be entitled to some degree of deference given its
“specialized experience,” and given the “value of uniformity.”
United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 234 (2001)
(quoting Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 140–41)). Our dissenting
colleague suggests that our holding imposes a particularly high
“risk of disuniformity” because, in Park Village, the Ninth
Circuit supposedly “ruled in favor of HUD’s interpretation.”
Dissenting Op. at 17. The majority does not, however, create
any such “disuniformity.” Park Village’s holding was limited
to the question before it—involving a midterm eviction for
nonpayment—and the majority agrees with the disposition of
that limited question. See Park Village, 636 F.3d at
1153 (“Plaintiffs have a statutory right to remain in the
complex, and are, accordingly, entitled to an injunction barring
Defendants from evicting them solely because they are paying
only their statutorily determined portion of each month's rental
payment.”). Cabining the “right to remain” in this instance
does not create “disuniformity.”
       Given the enhanced voucher provision’s clear directive
that, other than the four enhanced voucher distinctions,
assistance “shall be voucher assistance under subsection (o) of
this section,” 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(t)(1), its silence on
nonrenewal, and the Hayes family’s failure to point us to any
other part of the statute supporting a rejection of §
1437f(o)(7)(C)’s clear text as applied to the enhanced voucher
provision, we find HUD’s guidance unpersuasive insofar as it
interprets the enhanced voucher provision as extending the
requirement of cause to nonrenewals.
       We do not believe our holding today will render the
protections of the enhanced voucher provision meaningless or
produce a result at odds with the drafters’ intentions. The right