Skip to main content

Search

HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (The Green Book): 14.4.4 Common Standing Issues in Housing Cases

In tenants’ rights cases, defendants have rarely challenged standing, and even when they have, courts often have given short shrift to their arguments.139 In those cases, courts rejected the standing defenses because it was clear that the tenants had suffered a concrete injury or threat of injury and because it was clear that the statutes or other laws in question were designed to protect the tenants’ or applicants’ interests.

HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (The Green Book): 14.5.1 Overview

A threshold question in every lawsuit is whether a particular court has jurisdiction over a case. Federal court jurisdiction depends directly upon the claims that tenants and advocates assert. In federal housing cases, jurisdiction over a party’s claims will commonly fall into one or more of several well-defined categories: federal question, Commerce Clause, mandamus, civil rights, supplemental, removal or, occasionally, diversity jurisdiction. The Tucker Act may also establish jurisdiction in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for certain cases.

HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (The Green Book): 14.5.2 Federal Question (28 U.S.C. § 1331)

Federal courts can hear any claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”197 A civil action “arises under” these federal laws when there is a substantial federal question and the federal element is part of the plaintiff’s “well-pleaded complaint,” and not just in an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim.198 In Grable & Sons Metal Products, the U.S.

HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (The Green Book): 14.5.3 Commerce Clause Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1337)

Section 1337 empowers the federal courts to hear claims “arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce” and no jurisdictional amount is required.212 Acts of Congress regulating commerce are those statutes whose constitutional basis is the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.213 The Commerce Clause does not have to be the exclusive basis of the federal power, but it must be a significant one.214 The courts have held that Sectio

HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (The Green Book): 14.5.4 Mandamus Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1361)

Similar to Commerce Clause jurisdiction, the importance of mandamus as a stand-alone jurisdictional basis has faded since the removal of the amount-in-controversy requirement of Section 1331.222 The mandamus statute empowers district courts to hear claims “in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff,”223 often providing jurisdiction for claims against federal defendants.

HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (The Green Book): 14.5.5 Civil Rights Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1343)

Although civil rights jurisdiction is also superfluous230 since the elimination of the amount-in-controversy requirement for Section 1331, claimants still invoke it along with Section 1331 in civil rights cases.231 Among other things, Section 1343 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions challenging actions taken under color of state law that deny constitutional or statutory rights to equality or enforcing federal civil rights statutes.2

HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (The Green Book): 14.5.6 Supplemental or Pendent Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367)

Federal housing cases will often raise the issue of pendent or supplemental jurisdiction due to the presence of multiple claims and parties. Supplemental jurisdiction refers to the federal courts’ authority to hear additional claims substantially related to the original claim, even though the court would lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear the additional claims independently. Before 1990, when the supplemental jurisdiction statute was codified, these jurisdictional questions were governed by U.S.

HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (The Green Book): 14.5.7.2 General Removal—28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) and (b)

Under Section 1441, defendants can remove from the state to the federal courts civil actions that are within the federal courts’ original jurisdiction.254 These actions include (1) cases containing claims that “arise under” federal law255 and (2) cases founded upon diversity, with none of the defendants being citizens of the forum state.256 As with jurisdiction under Section 1331, for claims to “arise under” federal law, there must be a substantial

HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (The Green Book): 14.5.7.4 Federal Officer Removal—28 U.S.C. § 1442

Federal agencies and officers may remove cases under Section 1442 that other defendants could not under Section 1441.261 Under Section 1442, federal officials may remove to the federal courts actions brought against them in state courts for “any act under color of [their federal] office.”262 These actions include state court lawsuits against federal agencies and individuals who are acting in the course of their employment by or on behalf of the federal government or under the authority of a fede

HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (The Green Book): 14.5.7.5 Removal Jurisdiction Applicability in Housing Cases.

Common housing cases in which removal jurisdiction may arise include: (1) state court actions in which the plaintiff brings federal housing claims against non-federal defendants; (2) state court eviction actions in which the tenant is the defendant; and (3) state court actions that include claims against a federal party, such as HUD, in addition to state claims against non-federal defendants, such as a PHA.

HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (The Green Book): 14.6.1 Introduction

Policies designed to prevent conflict between federal and state courts can bear on whether the federal court will assume jurisdiction. This potential conflict is most acute in the context of a state court eviction case that tenants and advocates want to enjoin in federal court, but the federal court may have to abstain because it lacks the authority to exercise jurisdiction over the claim.

HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (The Green Book): 14.6.2.2 Avoiding Younger Abstention

Keeping in mind the policy considerations behind Younger, advocates can rely on any of the following factors to avoid the doctrine’s application as a bar to a federal action: (1) an absence of an important state interest at issue; (2) a demonstration that state procedures or remedies are inadequate to raise or redress federal claims; and (3) a demonstration that the tenant will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of federal intervention.

HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (The Green Book): 14.6.2.3 Absence of important state interest

Under Sprint, a federal court should not abstain unless there are exceptional circumstances implicating important state interests.324 Although it is unclear whether the state litigation must be state-initiated,325 it nevertheless seems critical to characterize the litigation as a private dispute or one focused on the federal interests at stake rather than a dispute involving an important state interest.