Holmes v. New York City Housing Authority

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1968 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawDue ProcessCivil RightsAbstention42 U.S.C. 1983Fourteenth Amendmentpublic housingascertainable standards

Facts

The New York City Housing Authority administered a vast public housing program in New York City and received about 90,000 applications each year while admitting only about 10,000 families. Plaintiffs were non-preference applicants who alleged they satisfied the statutory eligibility requirements but had not been notified in writing whether they were eligible or ineligible, even though many had applied years earlier. They alleged the Authority did not publish or post important admission regulations, did not process applications chronologically or under ascertainable standards, allowed applications to expire every two years without giving renewal credit, kept no waiting list or status device, refused to reveal applicant status, and did not notify rejected applicants of ineligibility or reasons. For state-aided projects, the Authority had adopted no standards for selection among non-preference candidates, unlike the objective scoring system used for federal-aided projects.

Issue

Did the complaint state a federal due process claim under Section 1983 against the Housing Authority's tenant-admission procedures, and if so, should the federal district court nevertheless abstain from hearing the case in favor of state court remedies?

Rule

When a governmental agency allocates a scarce public resource such as public housing, due process forbids absolute and uncontrolled administrative discretion and requires selections among applicants to be made under ascertainable standards. Where many applicants are equally qualified, further selection must be made in some reasonable manner, such as by lot, chronological order, or another fair objective system. In Section 1983 civil rights actions, abstention is permissible only in narrowly limited special circumstances, particularly where federal adjudication would disrupt a specialized state regulatory scheme and adequate state remedies exist.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Dayton Municipal Housing Bureau in Ohio manages a limited number of subsidized apartments. For applicants without any stated preference category, bureau staff choose whom to admit based on their personal assessment of who seems most deserving, and no written standards govern that choice.

If non-preference applicants sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a due process violation, which is the strongest argument in their favor?

Explanation. The majority held that when a governmental agency allocates a scarce public resource, due process forbids absolute and uncontrolled administrative discretion and requires selections to be made under ascertainable standards. The claim does not depend on proving immediate entitlement to a unit, discriminatory intent, or total federal withdrawal from local administration.