Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021)

Citation: Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021)
Parent Document: Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2021-11-12
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5296996/southwest-fair-housing-council-v-mdwid/ ↗

Full Text

1,145 chars

Thus, the only customers for whom the District required
an alternative recovery policy were those whose landlord
was Pinal County—i.e., its public housing customers. The
unique relationship between the District and Pinal County
was adequate justification for the District to issue the
prophylactic Security Deposit Policy. Appellants question
whether the policy truly served the District’s interest in fiscal
solvency because Edwards Circle tenants represent only a
small portion of the District’s full customer base. But
protecting against any otherwise unrecoverable financial
loss is a valid interest served by the policy. To that end,
Appellants fail to explain why the District should simply
lose the amounts of any delinquent public housing water
bills. Appellants also argue that recovering delinquencies
from Edwards Circle is not necessary for the District’s
financial solvency because the delinquencies were de
minimis. But a policy need not be essential or indispensable
to significantly serve a legitimate interest; moreover,
Appellants offer no meaningful limiting principle as to how
32 SW. FAIR HOUSING V. MARICOPA DOMESTIC WATER

Other Sections in This Document (145)

Full Text