Section 2

Citation: Section 2
Parent Document: Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1969-02-24
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/107814/thorpe-v-housing-authority-of-durham/ ↗

Full Text

921 chars

That HUD intended the February 7 circular to be mandatory has been confirmed unequivocally in letters written by HUD's Assistant Secretary for Renewal and Housing Assistance[22] and by its Chief Counsel.[23] As we stated in Bowles v. Seminole Rock Co., 325 U. S. 410, 414 (1945), when construing an administrative regulation, "a court must necessarily look to the administrative construction of the regulation if the meaning of the words used is in doubt. . . . [T]he ultimate criterion is the administrative interpretation, which becomes of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation."[24] Thus, when the language and HUD's treatment of the February 7 circular are contrasted with the language and treatment of the superseded circular, there can be no doubt that the more recent circular was intended to be mandatory, not merely advisory as contended by the Authority. *277 II.

Other Sections in This Document (147)

Full Text