5
on broad statements of policy and practice to determine that a statute confers a right. See,
e.g., Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 288 (2002).
In sum, without a right of action, the Whites’ attempt to privately enforce HUD
regulations in this case is unavailing.
This court also rejects the Whites’ claim that Northgate Housing and Northgate
Residents have violated their First Amendment right to free speech. The First
Amendment prevents only governments from abridging free speech rights; it does not
prevent private individuals or private entities from doing so. See 16A Am. Jur. 2d
Constitutional Law § 408 (1998). Neither Northgate Housing or Northgate Residents is
an arm of the state. Hence, the Whites’ First Amendment claim has no merit.
Finally, the Whites claim they have a right of action to enforce the Supremacy
Clause, arguing that actions of Northgate Housing or Northgate Residents contravene
federal law, which is the “supreme Law of the Land.” U.S. Const. art. VI. Although
federal courts have recognized a Supremacy Clause right of action, it applies only in
cases where state or municipal laws, regulations, or ordinances contravene federal law.
See Qwest Corp. v. City of Santa Fe, 380 F.3d 1258, 1263–64 (10th Cir. 2004). Again, at
issue in the instant case are actions and policies of private entities, not arms of the state.
Thus, the Supremacy Clause does not provide the Whites with a right of action, either.
With respect to the retaliatory eviction counterclaim, Northgate Housing argues
that the Whites have not met their burden and that the counterclaim should be dismissed
by summary judgment. Section 4465 of Title 9 of the Vermont Statutes Annotated
prohibits a landlord from retaliating “by establishing or changing terms of a rental
agreement or by bringing or threatening to bring an action against a tenant who . . . has
organized or become a member of a tenant’s union or similar organization.” Because this
is a counterclaim, the Whites have the burden of proof, but they need only provide
objective evidence that Northgate Housing’s actions were retaliatory. Houle v.
Quenneville, 173 Vt. 80, 90–91 (2001). “[T]enants can rely on the surrounding facts and
circumstances to fulfill their burden of proving retaliatory eviction.” Id.
Here, the Whites have met their burden of proof to defeat a summary judgment
motion. The Whites were longtime resident organizers at Northgate, having helped form
“Concerned Residents of Northgate.” The Whites point to several excerpts from