Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1029055.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1029055.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1029055.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,341 chars

14
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Hous. Auth. v. Knight, No. 102905-5

avoid reading statutes to have such reach without “‘exceedingly clear language’” from

Congress. Ala. Ass’n of Realtors, 594 U.S. at 764 (quoting U.S. Forest Serv. v.

Cowpasture River Pres. Ass’n, 590 U.S. 604, 140 S. Ct. 1837, 1849-50, 207 L. Ed. 2d

186 (2020)).

Knight argues that the clear statement rule is inapplicable because, unlike other

housing statutes, the CARES Act uses broad language and contains no exceptions for

different eviction timelines. See Pet’r Andre Knight’s Suppl. Br. at 14-15, 26 (citing 42

U.S.C.A. § 12755(b); 42 U.S.C.A. § 1437d(l)(4); Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act

(PFTA), Pub. L. No. 111-22, 123 Stat. 1632 (2009)). 3 But in Spector v. Norwegian

Cruise Line, Ltd., 545 U.S. 119, 139, 125 S. Ct. 2169, 162 L. Ed. 2d 97 (2005) (partial

plurality), the Supreme Court recognized that “clear statement rules ensure Congress does

not, by broad or general language, legislate on a sensitive topic inadvertently or without

due deliberation.” (Emphasis added.) That is, broad or general language alone is

insufficient to show clear congressional intent. West Virginia v. Env’t Prot. Agency, 597

U.S. 697, 746, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 213 L. Ed. 2d 896 (2022) (Gorsuch, J., concurring)