Wright v. Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority

Supreme Court of the United States · 1987 · Torts

TortsSection 1983Public HousingFederal Statutory Rights42 U.S.C. § 1983Brooke AmendmentHousing Act of 1937public housing tenants

Facts

Petitioners were tenants in low-income housing projects owned by respondent public housing authority. They alleged that the authority overbilled them for utilities by failing to comply with HUD regulations governing utility allowances and by imposing surcharges for utility consumption that should have been included within rent. The Brooke Amendment capped the amount a low-income family could pay as rent at a specified percentage of income, and HUD had consistently interpreted rent to include a reasonable amount for utilities. Petitioners sought relief under § 1983 for deprivation of their federal right to pay no more than the statutory maximum rent.

Issue

May public housing tenants bring a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a local housing authority for alleged utility overcharges that violate the Brooke Amendment's rent ceiling and HUD utility-allowance regulations? More specifically, did Congress foreclose § 1983 enforcement, or were the asserted rights too vague to be enforceable under § 1983?

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 from the statute itself, intended to foreclose private enforcement. A statutory benefit is enforceable under § 1983 when the statute and valid implementing regulations create sufficiently specific and definite rights rather than merely precatory preferences.

🔒

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.

A county housing board in Toledo, Ohio sets utility surcharges for tenants in subsidized apartments. Several tenants allege the surcharges push their total rent above a federal statutory cap defined by federal regulations to include a reasonable utility allowance. The housing board argues the tenants cannot sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the federal agency can audit local boards, enforce contribution contracts, and cut off funding.

Are the tenants likely permitted to proceed under § 1983?

Explanation. Section 1983 remains available to enforce a federal statutory right unless Congress expressly or by specific evidence from the statute itself foreclosed that remedy. The majority held that agency powers to audit, enforce contracts, and cut off funds were too generalized and insufficiently comprehensive to demonstrate preclusion. No exhaustion through agency action was required. (Derived from Wright v. Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (n.d.).)