Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Rucker v. Davis, 237 F.3d 1113 (2001)

Citation
Rucker v. Davis, 237 F.3d 1113 (2001)
Parent Document
Rucker v. Davis, 237 F.3d 1113 (2001)
Effective Date
2001-01-24

Other Sections in This Document (190)

Full Text

661 chars
HUD asserts that its interpretation of § 1437d(i )(6) is reinforced by a version of § 1437d(c)(4)(A)(iii) which was in effect until 1996. This version prohibited individuals or families who were evicted because of drug-related criminal activity from receiving a statutory housing preference for three years, but exempted “any member of a family of an individual” who the agency determined “clearly did not participate in and had no knowledge of such criminal activity.” HUD argues that if innocent tenants could not be evicted under § 1437d(i)(6), there would have been no need for such an exemption, which would have rendered § 1437d(c)(4)(A)(iii) sur-plusage.