Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 903 F.3d 32 (2018)

Citation: Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 903 F.3d 32 (2018)
Parent Document: Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 903 F.3d 32 (2018)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2018-08-31
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4531965/theodore-hayes-v-philip-harvey/ ↗

Full Text

1,042 chars

The Dissent, on the other hand, leans heavily on the use
of the word “clarify[]” in two committee reports—both of
which we cite above—to conclude that the 2000 amendment
was not meant to “substantively change” anything in the
statute. Dissenting Op. at 16. Indeed, aside from those two
reports, the legislative history the Dissent references relates to
the 1999 statute, which we concede did not require property
owners to renew the leases of enhanced voucher tenants. Thus,
those two committee reports appear to form the keystone of the
Dissent’s contention that the 2000 amendment was intended to
merely restate what the 1999 statute already required. In cases
like this, however, where the statutory language is
unambiguous, we require far more than a single word used in
two committee reports before we depart from the general
presumption that “[w]hen Congress amends legislation, . . . it
intends [the change] to have real and substantial effect.’” Ross,
136 S. Ct. at 1858 (last alteration in original) (quoting Stone,
514 U.S. at 397).

Other Sections in This Document (144)

Full Text