Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Open Cmtys. Alliance v. Carson, 286 F. Supp. 3d 148 (2017)

Citation
Open Cmtys. Alliance v. Carson, 286 F. Supp. 3d 148 (2017)
Parent Document
Open Cmtys. Alliance v. Carson, 286 F. Supp. 3d 148 (2017)
Effective Date
2017-12-23

Other Sections in This Document (99)

Full Text

694 chars
The plaintiffs' (1) notice and comment and (2) arbitrary and capricious claims boil down to a common issue-whether HUD identified adverse rental housing market conditions local to the particular PHAs as to which HUD delayed the Rule's implementation. For reasons explained below, HUD did not. HUD's failure to connect the Rule's delayed implementation in specific PHAs by reference to local conditions means 24 C.F.R. § 888.113(c)(4) gave the agency no authority to act without notice and comment, and also that HUD's decision-making was arbitrary and capricious. The plaintiffs thus have shown likely success on their claims' merits. 1. HUD Lacked Authority to Delay the Rule's Implementation.