No. 20-1046

Marin Housing Authority v. Kerrie Reilly

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2021-02-01
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
CVSGAmici (3)Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (3)
Tags: administrative-law annual-income developmental-disability housing-assistance income-calculation medicaid-funding medicaid-payments personal-caregiving public-housing
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Privacy
Latest Conference: 2021-12-10 (distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a public housing authority, in calculating a family's annual income, is required by this regulation to exclude Medicaid-funded payments made to a family by a State agency to allow the Section-8 tenant to provide personal-caregiving services in order to keep a developmentally-disabled family-member at home

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1437f, authorizes the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to enter into agreements with state and local public housing agencies (PHAs) in order for PHAs to administer housing assistance payments to low-income families. In evaluating Section 8 eligibility based on family income, HUD’s regulation defines annual income to include the full amount of wages “and other compensation for personal services.” The regulation, however, excludes “[a]mounts paid by a State agency to a family with a member who has a developmental disability and is living at home to offset the cost of services and equipment needed to keep the developmentally disabled family member at home.” 24 C.F.R. 5.609(c)(16). Soliciting but ultimately rejecting HUD’s interpretation of this ubiquitous income definition — one that governs over a dozen programs besides Section 8 — the California Supreme Court expressly disagreed with another state court of last resort as to the meaning of this regulation. In a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court also rejected the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation. Having rejected the interpretation expressed by HUD, and that of the Minnesota Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit, the California Supreme Court’s majority disagreed with the extensive dissenting opinion as well. The question presented is as follows: Whether a public housing authority, in calculating a family’s annual income, is required by this regulation ii to exclude Medicaid-funded payments made to a family by a State agency to allow the Section 8 tenant to provide personal caregiving services in order to keep a developmentally disabled family member at home. iii STATEMENT OF

Docket Entries

2021-12-13
Petition DENIED.
2021-11-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/10/2021.
2021-11-22
Supplemental brief of petitioner Marin Housing Authority filed. (Distributed)
2021-11-09
Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
2021-10-05
Letter from Kerrie Reilly received.
2021-06-21
The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
2021-06-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/17/2021.
2021-05-27
Reply of petitioner Marin Housing Authority filed. (Distributed)
2021-05-12
Brief of respondent Kerrie Reilly in opposition filed.
2021-03-16
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 12, 2021.
2021-03-15
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 12, 2021 to May 12, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-03-12
Response Requested. (Due April 12, 2021)
2021-03-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/26/2021.
2021-03-03
Brief amicus curiae of California Association of Housing Authorities filed.
2021-03-03
Brief amicus curiae of Scott County Community Development Agency filed.
2021-03-02
Waiver of right of respondent Kerrie Reilly to respond filed.
2021-01-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 3, 2021)

Attorneys

California Association of Housing Authorities
John EganRubin and Rudman LLP, Amicus
John EganRubin and Rudman LLP, Amicus
Kerrie Reilly
Nathaniel Peardon GarrettJones Day, Respondent
Nathaniel Peardon GarrettJones Day, Respondent
Marin Housing Authority
Robert CooperWilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, Petitioner
Robert CooperWilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, Petitioner
Scott County Community Development Agency
John Michael ReevesReeves Law LLC, Amicus
John Michael ReevesReeves Law LLC, Amicus
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Amicus
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Amicus