Wright v. City of Roanoke Redevelopment & Housing Authority

Supreme Court of the United States · 1987 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsSection 1983Federal statutory rightsPublic housing42 U.S.C. § 1983Brooke AmendmentHousing Act of 1937HUD regulations

Facts

Petitioners were tenants in low-income housing projects owned by the respondent public housing authority. They alleged the authority overcharged them for utilities by failing to comply with HUD regulations governing utility allowances and by imposing surcharges for excess utility consumption that should have been included within rent. The Brooke Amendment capped the rent that low-income families could be charged as a percentage of income, and HUD had consistently treated rent as including a reasonable amount for utilities. By the time of Supreme Court review, petitioners sought recovery of past improper charges.

Issue

May public-housing tenants use 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enforce the Brooke Amendment's rent ceiling, as implemented by HUD utility-allowance regulations, against a local housing authority? More specifically, did Congress foreclose § 1983 enforcement, or are the tenants' asserted rights too vague to qualify as enforceable federal rights?

Rule

If a state actor deprives a person of a right secured by a federal statute, § 1983 provides a remedy unless Congress, by express provision or other specific evidence in the statute itself, intended to foreclose private enforcement. A statute creates enforceable rights for § 1983 purposes when it uses mandatory, beneficiary-focused language and confers benefits sufficiently specific and definite for judicial enforcement; valid implementing regulations with the force of law may help define those rights.

🔒

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.

In Milwaukee, the Lakeside Homes Authority administers a federally funded housing program created by Congress. The statute provides that each eligible household "shall pay as monthly housing charges no more than 28% of adjusted income," and valid agency regulations define those charges to include a basic heating allowance. After the authority bills tenants separately for heat in excess of what the regulations permit, several tenants sue the authority under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for refunds.

What is the strongest argument that the tenants may proceed under § 1983?

Explanation. Section 1983 is available when a state actor deprives persons of rights secured by federal law unless Congress expressly or through specific evidence in the statute intended to foreclose that remedy. A mandatory ceiling directed to eligible households creates a tenant-focused right, and valid regulations may help define that right. The majority rejected the view that only express private-action provisions support § 1983 and did not treat every regulatory violation as automatically actionable.