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

1,075 chars

Like the majority, I begin with the statute’s text.
Rosenberg v. XM Ventures, 274 F.3d 137, 141 (3d Cir. 2001).
If the “language is plain and unambiguous, further inquiry is
not required.” Id. In determining whether the language is “plain
and unambiguous,” we examine “the language itself, the
specific context in which that language is used, and the broader
context of the statute as a whole.” Id. (quoting Marshak v.
Treadwell, 240 F.3d 184, 192 (3d Cir. 2001)). A proper reading
of the statute reveals that it is directed not at property owners,
but at HUD and assisted tenants, and that the program was
designed to incentivize—rather than compel—owners to
renew enhanced-voucher tenancies.
        The “may elect to remain” language at issue was added
to § 1437f(t)(1)(B) in 2000 via amendment. 2 The current
provision states that
               the assisted family may elect to
               remain in the same project in
               which the family was residing on
               the date of the eligibility event for
               the project, and if, during any

Other Sections in This Document (144)

Full Text