Federal judge blocks delay of rule to help low-income people obtain housing

Amelia

Former Staff
Jun 2014
45,965
27,876
Wisconsin
Federal judge blocks delay of rule to help low-income people obtain housing

HUD offered no valid reason to delay implementation of a rule to help poor people find housing.

And they didn't post the planned delay for notice and comment which would have been required absent of some other demonstrated justification for such a substantial change to the law. (This is the same hurdle that Obama failed to cross with his plan to expand DACA, and rightwingers were happy when that was stayed by the court, so they should have no problem with this.)


....

HUD officials announced in August that they would delay the rule for two years, after it was initially set to go into effect on Jan. 1. But several civil rights groups, including the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, sued the Trump administration over the move in October.

Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell, an Obama appointee, found that HUD did not provide fair reasoning to delay the rule and that the delay was made arbitrarily.

“This case is about the rule of law—whether an agency effectively may suspend a duly promulgated regulation without observing the procedures or identifying relevant factual criteria that the law requires to effect such a change," Howell wrote.

"The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ... without notice and comment or particularized evidentiary findings, has delayed almost entirely by two years implementation of a rule requiring over 200 local Public Housing Authorities ('PHAs') in 24 metropolitan areas, which HUD selected based on fixed, objective criteria, to calculate housing vouchers’ values based on local, rather than metropolitan-wide, prevailing market rents."

....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
Jul 2014
38,922
33,911
Border Fence
Can't wait to get our judges in there and stop this crap.
There are plenty of judges taking care of the Constitution now. Congress is taking a closer look at the morons Trump is appointing. If these Trump morons get on the bench...it is on a Republican Senate's watch
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
May 2012
70,160
14,153
By the wall
He's gotten plenty on the bench so far, no reason it won't continue.

Whether or not Trump is president, his impact will be pissing off liberals for a very, very long time to come. :)
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
77,292
46,662
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
Can't wait to get our judges in there and stop this crap.
You mean, crap like making the government obey the rule of law?

Oh, that's right ... you want Trump to be a king with unlimited and unreviewable executive power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people

HayJenn

Moderator
Jul 2014
71,246
61,769
CA
You mean, crap like making the government obey the rule of law?

Oh, that's right ... you want Trump to be a king with unlimited and unreviewable executive power.
I guess that show how little Trump supporters actually care about our country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
May 2012
70,160
14,153
By the wall
You mean, crap like making the government obey the rule of law?

Oh, that's right ... you want Trump to be a king with unlimited and unreviewable executive power.
I'm sorry but is there only ONE possible way the judge could rule here or does he have an option?

If the outcome is so crystal clear then you are saying we don't even need judges.
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
77,292
46,662
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
I'm sorry but is there only ONE possible way the judge could rule here or does he have an option?
The "option" is to follow the law, and in a case like this to order the government to follow the law. Your position is purely politically motivated, and since you have already indicated you support Trump being made king (with concomitant unlimited and unreviewable executive power), you are not interested in the law, but the political power of an individual. A government of a man, not laws.

If the outcome is so crystal clear then you are saying we don't even need judges.
Some cases are crystal clear, others are not. You are attempting to articulate a universal rule from a particular case. Logic does not work that way.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people