Nyc C.L.A.S.H., Inc. v. Carson
Decision Date | 02 March 2020 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 18-1711 (ESH) |
Citation | 442 F.Supp.3d 200 |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Parties | NYC C.L.A.S.H., INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ben CARSON, Secretary of Dep't of Housing & Urban Development, et al., Defendants. |
Edward A. Paltzik, Pro Hac Vice, Joshpe Mooney Paltzik, Esq., New York, NY, Lawrence J. Joseph, Law Office of Lawrence J. Joseph, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
James D. Todd, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
Plaintiffs, a smokers' rights organization and six individual smokers who reside in public housing, have brought this action against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development("HUD") and Ben Carson, the Secretary of HUD, challenging a regulation that bans smoking in public housing, including in individual residential units.Plaintiffs claim that the regulation violates the Fourth, Fifth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments and the Administrative Procedure Act("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.Before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.For the reasons stated herein, the Court will grant defendants' motion for summary judgment and denyplaintiffs' motion.
In order to "remedy the unsafe housing conditions and the acute shortage of safe dwellings for low-income families,"Congress passed the Housing Act, which provides funding to state and local agencies that develop and operate public housing ("public housing agencies" or "PHAs").142 U.S.C. §§ 1437,1437c,1437g.Congress tasked HUD with disbursing this funding and ensuring that its use furthered the purposes of the Act.Section 1437d(f)(1) provides that "[e]ach contract for contributions for a public housing agency shall require that the agency maintain its public housing in a condition that complies with standards which meet or exceed the housing quality standards established under paragraph (2)."Congress required in paragraph (2) that:
The Secretary shall establish housing quality standards under this paragraph that ensure that public housing dwelling units are safe and habitable.Such standards shall include requirements relating to habitability, including maintenance, health and sanitation factors, condition, and construction of dwellings....
42 U.S.C. § 1437d(f)(2).Thus, PHAs are required to agree to comply with HUD's housing quality standards in exchange for public housing funding.42 U.S.C. §§ 1437d(f)(1);see alsoFormHUD-53012A § 5( ).
24 C.F.R. § 965.653(a), (c).3HUD's stated purpose for the Rule was fourfold: (1) to "improve indoor air quality in the housing;"(2) to "benefit the health of public housing residents, visitors, and PHA staff;"(3) to "reduce the risk of catastrophic fires;" and (4) to "lower overall maintenance costs."81 Fed. Reg.at 87,431.
To effectuate the Rule, HUD amended the existing regulation setting forth lease requirements to include a requirement that all future PHA leases provide that the tenants will abide by the Smoke Free Rule. 24 C.F.R. § 966.4(f)(12).HUD also required PHAs to amend existing leases to explicitly incorporate the terms of the Rule. 24 C.F.R. § 965.655(a)(2).A tenant's failure to comply with his lease agreement, and thus, the Rule, could lead to termination of the tenancy and eviction.24 C.F.R. § 966.4(l )(2)(i)(B).All PHAs were required to be in full compliance with the Rule by July 30, 2018.24 C.F.R. § 965.655(b).
Plaintiffs are New York City Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment("NYC C.L.A.S.H."), a nonprofit organization "dedicated to protecting the interests of adults who smoke," and six individuals who are smokers and who live in public housing funded by HUD.4(Pls.' Mem. Supp. Summ. J. at 2–3, ECFNo. 26-1("").)They initiated this action on July 23, 2018, against HUD and Carson, in his official capacity.The complaint alleges that the Smoke Free Rule violates the anticommandeering principle of the Tenth Amendment(Counts One and Two), the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures (Counts Three and Four), the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment(Counts Five and Six), and the unconstitutional conditions doctrine (Count Seven).The complaint further alleges that the Rule is not a proper exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause power (Counts Eight and Nine), that HUD did not have the statutory authority to promulgate the Rule (Counts Ten, Eleven, and Twelve), and that the Rule is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion (Count Thirteen).5Plaintiffs seek vacatur of the Rule, or, alternatively, modification of the Rule to eliminate the ban on smoking in private residences.
The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which have been fully briefed.(SeePls.' Mot. forSumm. J., ECF No. 26;Defs.' Cross Mot. forSumm. J., ECF No. 33(); Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 34;Pls.' Opp. to Defs.' CrossMot., ECF No. 37();Pls.' Reply to Defs.' Resp., ECF No. 38;Defs.' Reply to Pls.'Opp., ECF No. 40().)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), summary judgment will be granted "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."Because the parties' statements of facts and responses thereto reveal no genuine disputes of material fact, the Court need only determine whether either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Sierra Club v. Mainella , 459 F. Supp. 2d 76, 90(D.D.C.2006)(quotingOccidental Eng'g Co. v. INS , 753 F.2d 766, 769–70(9th Cir.1985) ).Under the APA, a court may hold an agency action unlawful when it is, inter alia , "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law"; "contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity"; or "in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right."5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)–(C).
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443(1983).This standard of review is "highly deferential" and "presumes the validity of agency action."Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Air Agencies v. EPA , 489 F.3d 1221, 1228(D.C. Cir.2007)(citation, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted).So long as the agency "explain[s] the evidence which is available, and ... offer[s] a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made,"a court will not invalidate an agency rule.Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n , 463 U.S. at 52, 103 S.Ct. 2856(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
An agency abuses its discretion in promulgating a rule "if there is no evidence to support the decision or if the decision was based on an improper understanding of the law."Statewide Bonding, Inc. v. DHS , 422 F.Supp.3d 35, 39(D.D.C.2019)(citations and internal quotation marks omitted)."Put another way, the court's role is only to consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment."Id.(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Finally, in assessing constitutional challenges brought under the APA, a court does not defer to the agency's pronouncement on constitutional issues; instead, it "make[s]‘an independent assessment of a citizen's claim of constitutional right.’ "Poett v. United States , 657 F. Supp. 2d 230, 241(D.D.C.2009)(quotingLead Indus. Ass'n v. EPA , 647 F.2d 1130, 1173–74(D.C. Cir.1980) ).
Plaintiffs argue that the Smoke Free Rule violates the anticommandeering principle of the Tenth Amendment and exceeds Congress' Spending Clause power because the Rule impermissibly...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Salesian Soc'y, Province of St. Philip The Apostle, Inc. v. Mayorkas
... ... defer to the agency's pronouncement on constitutional ... issues.” NYC C.L.A.S.H., Inc. v. Carson , 442 ... F.Supp.3d 200, 209 (D.D.C. 2020). Instead, “a ... court's review of ‘constitutional challenges to ... agency actions ... ...
-
NYC C.L.A.S.H., Inc. v. Fudge
...summary judgment in favor of the Department, rejecting all of C.L.A.S.H.’s challenges in a thorough opinion. NYC C.L.A.S.H., Inc. v. Carson , 442 F. Supp. 3d 200, 223 (D.D.C. 2020). C.L.A.S.H. now appeals.II.C.L.A.S.H. renews the same statutory and constitutional claims it unsuccessfully ad......
-
Gulluni v. U.S. Attorney for Dist. of Mass.
...is that, while a reviewing court need "not defer to the agency's pronouncement on constitutional issues," NYC C.L.A.S.H., Inc. v. Carson, 442 F. Supp. 3d 200, 209 (D.D.C. 2020), that standard has not been extended to circumstances where, as here, the plaintiff has not brought a constitution......
-
Becker v. Fudge
...the Court granted HUD's motion for summary judgment and upheld the Smoke-Free Rule against the plaintiffs' challenges. C.L.A.S.H. 1, 442 F.Supp.3d at 221-23. The D.C. Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court certiorari. C.L.A.S.H. III, 47 F.4th at 757, cert. denied, 143 S.Ct. 1045 (2023). Se......