Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham

1967-06-05

Headline: Vacated and remanded: Court orders state courts to reconsider public housing eviction after HUD directive requiring tenants be told reasons and given chance to reply, affecting tenants in federally assisted projects.

Holding: The Court vacated the North Carolina Supreme Court’s judgment and remanded the eviction case for further proceedings to consider the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s February 7 directive requiring tenants be told eviction reasons and allowed to reply.

Real World Impact:

Requires local housing authorities to tell tenants reasons for eviction and allow a reply.
Gives state courts a reason to reexamine pending evictions in federally assisted projects.
Leaves unresolved whether HUD directive legally binds authorities or settles constitutional claims.

Topics: public housing evictions, tenant rights, HUD eviction policy, First Amendment and housing

Summary

Background

Joyce Thorpe was a tenant with her children in McDougald Terrace, a federally assisted low-rent housing project run by the Durham Housing Authority. She had a month-to-month lease. After she was elected president of a tenant group on August 10, 1965, the housing authority gave notice the next day ending her tenancy August 31 without stating any reasons. She refused to leave, the Authority sued and obtained eviction judgments in lower state courts, and the Supreme Court granted review while a state stay kept her in possession.

Reasoning

The Court did not decide the broad constitutional questions raised. Instead it noted that, after certiorari was granted, the Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a February 7, 1967 circular directing local authorities in federally assisted projects to inform tenants of the reasons for eviction and give them a chance to reply, and to keep written records. Because that directive could change the posture of the case, the Court vacated the North Carolina Supreme Court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings in light of the HUD circular. The Court explicitly left open whether the circular has binding legal effect and did not rule on whether evictions for associational activity would violate the Constitution.

Real world impact

The remand requires state courts and local housing authorities to consider the HUD directive when deciding pending evictions in federally assisted housing. Tenants in such projects may be entitled to an explanation and an opportunity to respond before eviction is finalized, but this ruling is not a final decision on the constitutional questions and could be revisited on further proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas concurred stressing that government landlords may not act arbitrarily and that evictions for protected association are unlawful; Justice White dissented, believing the state courts’ procedures were adequate and would have affirmed.