Henry G. Cisneros, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, et al. v. Alpine Ridge Group et al. (508 U.S. 10)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 3, 1993 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 508 U.S. 10 · 113 S. Ct. 1898
- Decided
- May 3, 1993
- Term
- October Term 1992
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice White
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court. The question presented in this case is whether § 801 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, 103 Stat. 2057, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by abrogating respondents’ contract rights to certain rental subsidies. I A In 1974, Congress amended the United States Housing Act of 1937 (Housing Act) to create what is known as the Section 8 housing program. Through the Section 8 program, Congress hoped to “ai[d] low-income families in obtaining a decent place to live,” 42 U. S. C. § 1437f(a) (1988 ed., Supp. III), by subsidizing private landlords who would rent to low-income tenants. Under the program, tenants make rental payments based on their income and ability to pay; the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) then makes “assistance payments” to the private landlords in an amount calculated to make up the difference between the tenant’s contribution and a “contract rent” agreed upon by the landlord and HUD. As required by the statute, this contract rent is, in turn, to be based upon “the fair market rental” value of the dwelling, allowing for some modest increase over market rates to account for the additional expense of participating in the Section 8 program. See §1437f(c)(l). The statute, as originally enacted, further provided that monthly rents for Section 8…
Excerpt of a 20,206-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.