Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless v. Barry

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 1997 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawDue ProcessFirst AmendmentProperty Interests in Government Benefitsproperty interestdue processgovernment benefitsofficial discretion

Facts

District law established objective eligibility criteria for emergency family shelter, but the District did not have enough shelter space to serve all eligible families. Neither the statutes nor the regulations prescribed how scarce shelter space had to be allocated among eligible families, so the Shelter Office used its own informal allocation systems, first first-come-first-served and later a wait-list system. The plaintiffs challenged both the shelter procedures and a policy that allowed unsolicited advocates into the Shelter Office waiting room only during limited weekly time periods. The District acknowledged that it was indifferent as to which eligible families actually received shelter.

Issue

Did District of Columbia law and regulations create a constitutionally protected property interest in emergency family shelter for eligible homeless families, such that due process protections applied to the shelter allocation and appeal procedures? Also, did the District's restriction limiting unsolicited advocates' access to the Shelter Office waiting room to certain times violate the First Amendment in a nonpublic forum?

Rule

A statute or regulation creates a constitutionally protected property interest only if it places substantive limitations on official discretion through explicitly mandatory language requiring that when substantive predicates are present, a particular outcome must follow. Where administrators retain unfettered discretion to choose which otherwise eligible persons receive a scarce benefit, no protected property interest exists. In a nonpublic forum, restrictions on speech or access must be reasonable.

🔒

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.

Seattle operates a winter motel-voucher program for families. A city ordinance lists objective eligibility criteria, but the city has fewer vouchers than eligible families and the ordinance says nothing about how officials must distribute the limited vouchers; staff use an internal lottery that can be changed at any time.

Do eligible families have a constitutionally protected property interest in receiving a voucher?

Explanation. A protected property interest exists only when statutes or regulations place substantive limits on official discretion and require that when stated predicates are met, a particular outcome must follow. Here, although eligibility is defined objectively, the law does not require vouchers to go to all eligible families and leaves allocation of scarcity to administrative choice. That means eligible families have no legitimate claim of entitlement.