Love v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 704 F.2d 100 (1983)

Citation: Love v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 704 F.2d 100 (1983)
Parent Document: Love v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 704 F.2d 100 (1983)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1983-03-31
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8926891/love-v-united-states-department... ↗

Full Text

1,463 chars

The identification of unreasonable lease provisions is accomplished by informal rule-making that is authorized by statute and governed by HUD regulations; it is an essentially legislative process resulting in regulations that are of nationwide applicability. In Vermont Yankee, supra, the Supreme Court stated that section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 553 (1976) sets forth the maximum procedural requirements that Congress intended to have courts impose upon agencies in such a rulemaking context. The Court reasoned that a hovering judicial spectre would scare agencies into adopting full adjudicatory procedures in every case in order to foreclose the possibility that a substantive rule would be vacated based on a court’s perception of “better” or “more correct” procedure. See id. at 546-47, 98 S.Ct. *104at 1213; see also Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass’n, Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 303, 101 S.Ct. 2352, 2374, 69 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981) (district court erred in substituting its own policy preference that agency respond to petition for relief from agency orders within a time shorter than that required by statute or regulation). Thus absent constitutional constraints, a superseding statutory or regulatory mandate, or extremely compelling circumstances, the agencies are free to fashion their own rule-making procedures. 435 U.S. at 524-25, 98 S.Ct. at 1202.13 None of these supervening factors are present in this case.

Other Sections in This Document (55)

Full Text