Yolano-Donnelly Tenant Ass’n v. Cisneros

S-86-846 MLS PAN (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 1996). ; Clearinghouse Number: 41214

Description

Challenge to 1980 Housing Restrictions Based on Immigration Status Dismissed in Part

Abstract

The district court has granted in part and denied in part HUD’s motion to dismiss this class action challenging section 214 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 1436a, and its implementing regulations, which restrict federal housing assistance to U.S. citizens and certain eligible aliens. Plaintiffs, citizens and eligible aliens eligible for subsidized housing but for undocumented aliens in their households, claimed that section 214 violated their Fifth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection, constituted an improper delegation of power, and violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–19, by granting discretion to public housing authorities to deny certain forms of housing assistance. They also claimed that HUD’s 1995 regulations implementing section 214 were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), and adopted in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(c), and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 605(b). The district court did not dismiss plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claims but held that a policy simply denying the right to cohabit did not directly and substantially interfere with that right and thus did not trigger strict scrutiny. The court found that plaintiffs did not state a claim that the grant of discretion to both HUD and public housing authorities was an improper delegation of legislative power or that defendants violated the Fair Housing Act. The court did not rule on plaintiffs’ APA claim because it was not factually or legally distinct from any of their other claims. It did find that HUD might not have evaluated relevant factors thoroughly and reasonably as the NEPA required and denied HUD’s motions on plaintiffs’ NEPA claim. The court found that HUD’s certification pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 605(b) that no regulatory flexibility was necessary was not subject to review.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Plaintiffs represented by Stephen Rosenbaum, California Rural Legal Assistance, 631 Howard St., Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94105-3907, (415) 777-2752.
Docket Date
1996-03-08 00:00:00+00:00