INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

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

1,307 chars 
But in 2000, Congress amended the enhanced voucher
statute and added the “may elect to remain” language. Military
Construction Appropriations Act, 2001, Pub. L. 106-246
§ 2801, 114 Stat. 511 (2000). Congress changed the enhanced
voucher, adding new language and providing tenants new
protections. See also Park Vill. Apartment Tenants Ass’n v.
Mortimer Howard Tr., 636 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2011)
(“[I]n 2000, Congress amended the enhanced voucher
provision to make it even more protective of tenants.”)
(emphasis added). This legislative action must be given
meaning, effect, and force. “When Congress acts to amend a
statute, we presume it intends its amendment to have real and
substantial effect.” Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 397 (1995).
An interpretation of the enhanced voucher statute that treats the
“may elect to remain” language as mere scene-setting for the
operative discussion of rent calculations renders the 2000
version of the statute indistinguishable from the 1999 version
of the statute. Congress intended that its amendment change
the meaning of the statute. Our interpretation must effectuate
that enactment. By providing that tenants “may elect to
remain” in their homes, Congress must have given them some
right that they did not enjoy previously: specifically, a right to
remain.