Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Modoc Lassen Indian Housing Authority v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided July 25, 2017No. Nos. 14-1313; 14-1331; 14-1338; 14-1340; 14-1343; 14-1407; No. 14-1484, No. 15-1060Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBacharach, J.

I join the majority’s .excellent opinion in Parts 11(A) and (C). But in connection with Part 11(B), I respectfully dissent. In my view, HUD enjoyed statutory authority to recoup overpayments under the block grants. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion in Part 11(B) that HUD lacked this authority.

The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (“NAHASDA”) authorizes a pool of funds for HUD to allocate among Native American tribes. In this case, HUD overpaid certain tribes and - sought to recoup the overpayments through administrative…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. McNally v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Morton v. RuizSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. SoliminoSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FCCSupreme Court of the United States · 1986

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API