Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey (2018)

Citation
Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey (2018)
Parent Document
Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey (2018)
Effective Date
2018-08-31

Other Sections in This Document (144)

Full Text

766 chars
But the very next year, in 2000, Congress replaced the
above language with the current version of § 1437f(t)(1)(B)’s
first clause, stating 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.” Pub. L. No. 106-246, § 2801,
114 Stat. 511, 569 (2000). Our interpretation must effectuate
that change, for it simply is not plausible that Congress
amended the statute within one year of its initial enactment
merely to set the scene differently. By providing that eligible
families “may elect to remain,” Congress must have given
those families some right that they did not enjoy previously—
a right to choose to stay that their landlords must accept by
continually renewing their leases.