HUD Regulation on 'No Cause' Evictions Is Unconstitutional

A HUD regulation, 24 C.F.R. Section 247.10, allowed HUD to terminate tenancies in HUD-owned housing projects for substantial rehabilitation, demolition, or the sale of buildings to a buyer for those purposes, without utilizing the procedures required for other grounds for eviction. Tenants sued HUD, claiming that this so-called "no cause" eviction regulation was unconstitutional. The court ruled for tenants, and HUD asked the court to reconsider. HUD argued that tenants had moved out of HUD housing by the time the court ruled, that HUD had voluntarily agreed not to use "no cause eviction" proceedings, and tenants didn't seek a declaration of unconstitutionality in their complaint. The court ruled against HUD. Other tenants facing eviction were likely to relocate rather than risk summary eviction. And the fact that HUD voluntarily agreed to cease using "no cause" eviction proceedings in connection with properties subject to a 2002 memo of understanding with HPD didn't make the issue moot. Also, even if tenants didn't claim that the regulation was unconstitutional, the court had the authority to make that determination.

Linares v. Jackson: NYLJ, 5/9/08, p. 30, col. 3 (E.D.N.Y.; Block, J)