| Court: | CD Circuit Court |
| Facts: | Edwards is a squeaky wheel, always complaining about code violations, etc. Habib gives her 30 days to vacate. |
| Posture: | Appeal from the default judgement ordering her out. Initial judicial review says that proof of a retaliatory motive would be a defense against eviction. At trial, however, a different judge found for the landlord. Appeal. |
| Issue: | Is it unconstitutional to apply the eviction statute to tenants who complain about code violations? |
| Holding: | We don't have to decide that-- it's obvious that the code is for the protection of tenants. So, no eviction, but we're not laying down new constitutional thoughts here. |
| Rule: | Complaints are protected speech under 1A, and so the state can't impose punishment. But we don't really have to worry about that; the code implies that the court should protect the tenant's interests. |
| Reasoning: | Where two interpretations are possible, we should try to duck
the one with constitutional questions. We assume that Congress
wanted us to avoid constitutional doubts. This might be sort of
like Shelley v. Kraemer, where the court declined
to enforce racially discriminatory real estate covenants.
So, if that were the case, if the landlord's action is
unreasonable, it would also be unconstitutional.
Thankfully, Congress has made its policy clear: we want people to have sanitary safe dwellings. To permit retaliatory evictions would be to undermine this. People would be afraid to complain, lest they be evicted. So, the statute allows eviction for no reason at all, but we hold that a retaliatory motive is forbidden. |
| Dicta: | We have the responsibility to consider the social context in which our decisions will have effect. |