DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 888

Citation
Section 888
Parent Document
Open Cmtys. Alliance v. Carson, 286 F. Supp. 3d 148 (2017)
Effective Date
2017-12-23
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7328080/open-cmtys-alliance-v-carson/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (99)

Full Text

751 chars 
A conclusion that 24 C.F.R. § 888.113(c)(4) does not give HUD essentially boundless discretion to suspend an SAFMR designation or exempt a PHA for any reason, but rather provides meaningful standards by which a court may evaluate the lawfulness of HUD's actions, necessarily also defeats the defendants' contention that HUD's delay of the SAFMR Rule's implementation is not reviewable. Defs.' Opp'n at 19-21; see Cody v. Cox , 509 F.3d 606, 610 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ("[Re]but[ting] the presumption that agency action is judicially reviewable" requires a defendant to show that "the relevant statute is drawn so that a court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency's exercise of discretion." (internal quotation marks omitted)).