The coalition emphasized that the “proposed rule misstates the legislative and regulatory history of Section 214 of the Housing and Community Development Ac of 1980.
According to the coalition, the HUD is “mischaracterizing the history of proration of benefits for families with mixed immigration status, preservation assistance and effective dates of the requirements of Section 214.” It is attempting to depart from “past practice and legislative intent” of the housing law.
HUD’s new proposed rule is arbitrary, capricious, and violates the APA
Here are some of reasons provided by the coalition in opposing the HUD’s new policy proposal include the following:
- Prior to 1987, Congress and the Courts voided efforts to deem mixed-status families ineligible for housing assistance.
- The 1987 Act and its implementing regulations ensured continued assistance for mixed-status families.
- Since 1995, Congress has continued to affirmatively sanction prorating assistance to mixed-status families.
- The department’s adoption and implementation of the proposed rule will cause harm to the states and private housing providers.
- The increased cost of the proposed rule will result in higher costs to the states, and will reduce access to subsidized housing programs.
- New administrative burdens will deter housing providers from participating in subsidized housing programs.
- The proposed rule will cause serious harm to legal residents and citizens in the states and will impinge on their constitutional rights.
- The proposed rule conflicts with city and state laws.
- The proposed rule would, if finalized, violate the Administrative Procedure Act.
- The department’s failure to consider how the proposed rule will impact city and state social benefits systems, and will create administrative burdens on housing providers is arbitrary and capricious.
- The department’s underlying reasoning in creating the proposed rule—to prompt Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform—is arbitrary and capricious as it is outside the factors Congress intended the agency to consider when taking regulatory action.
