section of

Citation: section of
Parent Document: Connie Burton v. Tampa Housing Authority, 271 F.3d 1274 (2001)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2001-11-07
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/75678/connie-burton-v-tampa-housing-authority/ ↗

Full Text

2,038 chars

21
services but not others, there may be no constitutional
implications. Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 475, 97 S.Ct.
2376, 53 L.Ed.2d 484 (1977) (subsidizing childbirth, but
not abortion "does not interfere" with a fundamental
right, but merely "encourages" childbirth).
       When managing a public housing complex, the
government’s role is not unlike that of an employer or
purchaser. The constitution does not require the
government to provide decent and safe housing to its
citizens. Lindsey, 405 U.S. at 74, 92 S.Ct. 862 (there is
no "constitutional guarantee of access to dwellings of a
particular quality.") The rights provided in the Housing
Act of 1937 and its subsequent amendments arise from
congressional notions of sound policy not constitutional
necessity. In furtherance of such policy, Congress should
be accorded considerable flexibility in fixing the
necessary rules with which beneficiaries must comply.
       In this case, Congress has limited the right to
reside in public housing to those individuals who agree to
accept responsibility for the drug-related criminal activity
of their household members and guests. It has granted to
PHAs the authority to withdraw this benefit from those
who will not or cannot prevent their guests from
engaging in such activity. So long as this condition is
relevant to the government’s underlying interest as a
landlord, it is constitutionally permissible. Nollan v. Cal.
Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825, 836, 107 S.Ct. 3141, 97
L.Ed.2d 677 (1987) (if governmental purpose is
sufficient to justify outright refusal of benefit, it is
sufficient to justify conditions on that benefit). See also
Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 25
L.Ed.2d 491 (1970).
       In Lyng v. Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace
and Agric. Implement Workers of America, UAW
(UAW"), 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380
(1988), the Supreme Court upheld the denial of food
stamps to an entire household because a single member
of that household was on strike. Like the tenants in the

Other Sections in This Document (356)

Full Text