(a) The tenant-based program requires compliance with all equal opportunity requirements imposed by contract or federal law, including the authorities cited at 24 CFR 5.105(a) and title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.
(b) Civil rights certification. The PHA must submit a signed certification to HUD that:
(1) The PHA will administer the program in conformity with the Fair Housing Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
(2) The PHA will affirmatively further fair housing in the administration of the program.
(c) Obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. The PHA shall affirmatively further fair housing as required by § 903.7(o) of this title.
(d) State and local law. Nothing in part 982 is intended to pre-empt operation of State and local laws that prohibit discrimination against a Section 8 voucher-holder because of status as a Section 8 voucher-holder. However, such State and local laws shall not change or affect any requirement of this part, or any other HUD requirements for administration or operation of the program.
(e) Protection for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. The PHA must apply the requirements in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking). For purposes of compliance with HUD's regulations in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, the covered housing provider is the PHA or owner, as applicable given the responsibilities of the covered housing provider as set forth in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L. For example, the PHA is the covered housing provider responsible for providing the Notice of occupancy rights under VAWA and certification form described at 24 CFR 5.2005(a). In addition, the owner is the covered housing provider that may choose to bifurcate a lease as described at 24 CFR 5.2009(a), while the PHA is the covered housing provider responsible for complying with emergency transfer plan provisions at 24 CFR 5.2005(e).
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2577-0169)
[60 FR 34695, July 3, 1995, as amended at 60 FR 45661, Sept. 1, 1995; 63 FR 23859, Apr. 30, 1998; 64 FR 26641, May 14, 1999; 64 FR 56911, Oct. 21, 1999; 73 FR 72344, Nov. 28, 2008; 75 FR 66263, Oct. 27, 2010; 80 FR 8245, Feb. 17, 2015; 81 FR 80816, Nov. 16, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Langlois v. Abington Hous. Auth., 234 F. Supp. 2d 33 (D. Mass. 2002).
· cites it 7× “§§ 1437c-l(b) (annual plan requirement), 1437c-l(d)(15) (2002) (civil rights certification requirement); 24 C.F.R. §§ 982.53 , 982.54; see also 60 Fed.”
Rosario v. Diagonal Realty, LLC, 9 Misc. 3d 681 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 9× “(24 CFR 982.53 [d].) In an effort to provide landlords with an incentive to improve and rehabilitate their buildings, and maintain and increase the supply of urban housing stock, New York City enacted the so-called “J-51” law (Administrative Code § J51-2.”
Rosario v. Diagonal Realty, LLC, 872 N.E.2d 860 (NY 2007).
· cites it 2× “HUD, moreover, introduced regulatory language clarifying that “[n]othing in part 982 [the federal regulations governing the Section 8 program] is intended to pre-empt operation of State and local laws that prohibit discrimination against a Section 8 voucher-holder because of…”
Montgomery Cnty. v. Glenmont Hills Assocs. Privacy World, 936 A.2d 325 (Md. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Nonetheless, a new regulation, codified as 24 CFR § 982.53 (d), was added to provide: “Nothing in part 982 is intended to pre-empt operation of State laws that prohibit discrimination against a Section 8 voucher-holder.”
Barrientos v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC, 583 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2009).
“§ 1437f(o)(7)(D)(vi) (“[Njothing in this section shall be construed to supersede any provision of any Federal, State, or local law that provides greater protection than this section for victims of domestic violence.”
Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 874 F.3d 98 (3rd Cir. 2017).
· cites it 2× “” See Dissenting Op. at 23. Because the statute does not by its terms require cause for nonrenewal, any limitations on nonrenewal would necessarily come from the HAP contract or related lease.”
Bourbeau v. Jonathan Woodner Co., 549 F. Supp. 2d 78 (D.D.C. 2008).
“For example, the federal law setting forth the Housing Choice Voucher Program does not contain an express preemption clause. In addition, HUD regulations themselves provide that the Housing Choice Voucher Program was not “intended to preempt operation of State and local laws…”
City of Tempe v. State, 351 P.3d 367 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“§ 3604 (prohibiting discrimination in the sale or rental of housing); 24 C.F.R. § 982.53 (requiring administrator of HCVP to comply with certain anti-discrimination laws).”
Kosoglyadov v. 3130 Brighton Seventh, LLC, 54 A.D.3d 822 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008).
“f the section 8 program at the federal level, state and local law may properly provide additional protections for recipients of section 8 rent subsidies even if those protections could limit an owner’s ability to refuse to participate in the otherwise voluntary program (see…”
Edwards v. Hopkins Plaza Ltd. P'ship, 783 N.W.2d 171 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010).
“” 24 C.F.R. § 982.53 (d) (2009). Thus, “[t]he Federal statute merely creates the scheme and sets out the guidelines for the funding and implementation of the program through local housing authorities.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.