INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Section 8

Citation
Section 8
Parent Document
Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 874 F.3d 98 (2017)
Effective Date
2017-10-18
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4435296/theodore-hayes-v-philip-harvey/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (260)

Full Text

1,036 chars 
The text of the statute, as well as its history and
structure, makes clear that Congress has granted enhanced
voucher holders a right to remain.              The majority’s
interpretation of the statute, which holds that Congress offered
tenants no new right when it amended the enhanced voucher
statute to provide that tenants “may elect to remain” in their
homes, is plainly foreclosed. As between “some right to
remain” and “no right to remain,” Congress’s choice is clear.
But as is often the case, the text does not detail the precise
bounds of that right to remain: that task has been left to the
courts and to HUD, both of which have undertaken it. The
majority declines the responsibility here. 7 Because Congress
chose to use solely the “may elect to remain” language, rather
than a detailed elaboration of the right to remain, it has left a
gap in the statute. “Filling these gaps . . . involves difficult
policy choices that agencies are better equipped to make than
courts,” Nat’l Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet