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

1,323 chars 
7
        The majority pleads that it has not stripped all meaning
from the words “may elect to remain.” It opines that those
words “make clear that, following a valid opt-out, HUD could
not force an assisted family to leave the unit.” Maj. Op. at 15
n.3. But this interpretation still fails to solve the problem: it
fails to give the 2000 amendment independent meaning. As
the majority acknowledges, the 1999 version of the statute
already required HUD to provide enhanced vouchers to
eligible families. Maj. Op. at 14; Multifamily Assisted
Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 § 524(d), Pub.
L. No. 106-74, § 531, 113 Stat. 1047, 1113 (1999) (codified as
amended at 42 U.S.C. § 1437f note) (“[T]he Secretary shall
make enhanced voucher assistance under section 8(t) of the
United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(t))
available on behalf of each low-income family who, upon the
date of such expiration, is residing in an assisted dwelling unit
in the covered project.”). This obligation necessarily prohibits
HUD from forcing eligible families out of their homes. After
all, the requirement that HUD issue the vouchers is
meaningless if HUD can remove tenants itself and eliminate
the need for the vouchers in the first place. Thus, the majority’s
interpretation renders the 2000 amendment superfluous.