Wn.2d 537, 546, 909 P.2d 1303 (1996).
Further, Knight argues that because subsections (b) and (c) contain different terms,
we must interpret them differently. Subsection (b) pauses the time where a lessor may
make “any filing” to begin an eviction for failure to pay rent, while subsection (c) lacks
this term. 15 U.S.C. § 9058(b) (emphasis added). But subsection (c)(2) encompasses the
term when it expressly references subsection (b). Read together, the provision states that
a landlord may not issue a notice to vacate without providing 30 days’ notice until the
expiration of the 120-day moratorium on making any filing initiating an eviction for
failure to pay rent. 15 U.S.C. § 9058(b)-(c).
2. The clear statement rule supports a narrow interpretation of § 9058(c)
Because we are interpreting a federal statute, we also consider an additional tenet
applied by the United States Supreme Court: the clear statement federalism rule.
The clear statement federalism rule is a canon of interpretation that requires
Congress to make its intent “‘unmistakably clear’ when enacting statutes that would alter
the usual constitutional balance between the Federal Government and the States.”
Hayden v. Pataki, 449 F.3d 305, 323 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted)
(quoting Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 460, 111 S. Ct. 2395, 115 L. Ed. 2d 410
(1991)).
13
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Hous. Auth. v. Knight, No. 102905-5
Relevant to the present case is the “well-established principle that ‘it is incumbent
upon the federal courts to be certain of Congress’ intent before finding that federal law
overrides’ the ‘usual constitutional balance of federal and state powers.” Bond v. United