Marin Housing Authority v. Kerrie Reilly

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 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.