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)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2017-12-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7328080/open-cmtys-alliance-v-carson/ ↗

Full Text

1,310 chars

The plaintiffs argue that they likely will succeed on the merits of their claim that HUD's delay of the Rule is procedurally defective because HUD did not observe the requirements of notice and comment. Pls.' Mem. at 22-27. HUD, invoking a provision of the Rule, argues unsuccessfully that the Secretary has broad authority to delay the Rule's implementation wholesale whenever the Secretary determines he has reason to do so. Defs.' Opp'n at 21-27; Hr'g Tr. (Dec. 19, 2017) at 30.6 The plaintiffs, relying on the same Rule provision, argue that the Secretary's authority is more circumscribed, and does not reach HUD's action here. Hr'g Tr. at 7. "To choose between those competing [constructions], we look to the context in which the words appear." McDonnell v. United States , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2355, 2368, 195 L.Ed.2d 639 (2016). The Court concludes that although HUD may suspend an SAFMR designation or exempt a PHA within such a designated area under circumstances in which SAFMRs may adversely impact the area or PHA's rental housing unit supply, HUD has made no such area-specific showing with respect to the 23 metropolitan areas as to which the agency delayed the Rule's implementation. As such, the plaintiffs have demonstrated likely success on the merits on their notice and comment claim.7

Other Sections in This Document (99)

Full Text