Recent Developments: Cases Rucker v. Davis, 98-16322, ___F.3rd __ (9th Cir. Jan. 24, 2001)(En Banc). Court of Appeals invalidates HUD's one-strike regulations because, as applied to innocent tenants, they are inconsistent with the authorizing statute. It upholds the district court's decision to preliminarily enjoin the Oakland (CA) Public Housing Authority from evicting four residents pursuant to those regulations. The decision reverses an earlier 2-1 panel decision of the same court, reported at 203 F.3d 627. Brief for Amici Curiae AARP, ENPHRONT, Island Tenants On the Rise, Massachusetts Union of Public Housing Tenants, Camelitos Tenants Association, and Public Housing Resident Council, in support of Respondents Perlie Rucker, et. al., in Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Perlie Rucker, et. al., No. 00-1770, __ U.S. ___ (Scheduled for Argument, Feb. 19, 2002) (This brief argues that the text of the HUD "one-strike" statute is silent on the existence of an innocent tenant defense, and that HUD's rule, which precludes the assertion of innocence to reviewing courts, is unreasonable.). Letter from Mel Martinez, Secretary of HUD, to Public Housing Directors (April 16, 2002) (urges PHAs to be guided by compassion and common sense and to apply the one strike rule responsibly not rigidly) Letter from Michael M. Liu, Assistant Secretary of HUD, to Public Housing Directors (June 6, 2002) (reminds PHAs in applying one-strike rule that they are not required to evict for every lease violation and may evict just the wrongdoer). The letter is also available at http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/index.cfm. Click on Assistant Secretary's letter to PHA Directors. Letter from Carole W. Wilson, HUD Associate General Counsel for Litigation to Charles J. Macellaro, Attorney, Re: PHA Evictions For Criminal Activity Proscribed by Lease Provision Mandated by Section 6(l)(6) of the U.S. Housing Act (August 15, 2002) (HUD legal opinion issued to the PHA for Yonkers, NY regarding Rucker and HUD regulations. In the opinion, HUD repeats its position that a PHA is not required to apply or consider the discretionary factors, but is free to do so if it wishes to do so. The opinion cites Oakwood Plaza Apartments v. Smith, 352 N.J. Super. 467, 800 A.2d 265 (2002), the recent New Jersey Section 8 case, and essentially says the position taken by the court there is NOT HUD's position.) The opinion is also available at www.hud.gov/offices/pih. . |
