The purpose of the funding is for the promotion of education and equalit y for women. NCTE has a dedication to providing a voice for advocacy that has an objective of advancing the equality of people in the transgender community. The organization has an aim that states that the body is devoted to ending discrimination and violence that exist against the transgender people.
The objective is achieved through the platform of education and advocacy on national matters that are of significance to the transgender people. NCTE has an obligation of monitoring the federal activities and consequently communicated these activities to the transgender community on the nationwide basis.
The organization as well educates the congress on matters that impact the community of the transgender and consequently provide a center that has expertise on an issue affecting the transgender community.
NCTE engage in several projects that have an objective of protecting the right of the transgender community. The organization, through partnerships, works to facilitate the ability of transgender people to obtain the accurate documentations that vary from national identity cards, birth certificates amongst others.
NCTE also sponsors a conference that the transgender people can use as a platform to talk about the issues they face. Social justice is the concept that advocates the need for equality amongst all members of the society regardless of physical ability, sexual orientation or cultural backgrounds. In order for me to achieve social justice, I have to break a myriad of barriers currently existing preventing equality.
My initial step will be to learn about the diversity and interaction and the current issue facing the marginalized group. I will afterward ensure that I try as much as possible in ensuring that everyone receives fair treatment with the little influence I have. In addition, I will ensure that I conduct a broad campaign on the online platform in order to create as much awareness as possible. ADAPT, or Americans Disabled for Attendant Programs Today, is a disability rights collective focused on highlighting and changing the institutional discrimination faced by disabled people.
Founded in as a collective of activists from multiple existing disability rights groups who demanded that city buses include wheelchair-accessible lifts, ADAPT soon branched out into other disability rights issues, such as legislation that solidifies the rights of disabled people.
ADAPT often makes headlines for their bold civilly disobedient tactics, such as occupying government offices or blocking bus routes.
This presumption of enforcement decision unreviewability may be rebutted, however, "where the substantive statute has provided guidelines for the agency to follow in exercising its enforcement powers. Thus, we may review HUD's enforcement decisions only if Congress has granted us power to review by providing us with guidelines or "law to apply. In June , under section of the Rehabilitation Act, 4 HUD issued regulations addressing the accessibility of multi-family housing projects built or substantially altered with federal financial assistance.
Because this is precisely the type of agency decision that is presumed unreviewable under Chaney, the question before us is whether ADAPT can overcome the Chaney presumption by demonstrating that Congress intended to permit review by providing courts with law to apply. See id. The District Court agreed that a mandatory duty was created by section 8. The court, however, held that "the regulations do [ ] not set forth significant, substantive standards as to the circumstances in which HUD will find 'possible failure to comply.
In other words, the court found that Congress did not supply the substantive standards to judge the conduct necessary to rebut the Chaney presumption against review.
ADAPT confuses the existence of a standard restricting federal funding recipients with the existence of a standard by which to judge HUD's conduct.
Our opinion in Harmon Cove Condominium Association v. Marsh, F. In Harmon Cove, a condominium association brought an action against the Secretary of the Army to compel the Secretary to enforce a permit issued to the condominium developers. The association claimed that section of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which included language similar to section 8. The permit contained explicit terms that bound the recipients, much like the section regulations contain specific terms that bind housing providers that receive federal funding.
Despite these explicit terms, we found that the APA did not allow us to review the agency's decision not to enforce the terms of the permit. We stated that " [t]he statute imposes no duty on the Secretary to make a finding of violation, because it contains no guidelines for the Secretary to follow in choosing to initiate enforcement activity. We rejected the association's argument that it would be "anomalous" to issue a permit and then not enforce the conditions of the permit.
As we noted in Harmon Cove, " [t]he short answer is that in the absence of some guidelines binding the [agency's] enforcement decisions, [we] are bound by the Supreme Court's ruling that such determinations are left to the [agency]. Congress has provided no guidelines, or law to apply, to constrain HUD's decision to investigate violations of its regulations. Therefore, we have no choice but to conclude that these decisions are committed exclusively to agency discretion.
Review of HUD's decisions whether to bring enforcement actions under the section regulations is governed squarely by Chaney. The regulations promulgated under section make it clear that HUD has discretion whether to bring enforcement actions in specific cases.
See 24 C. The same concerns that persuaded the Supreme Court to conclude the agency enforcement actions presumptively unreviewable in Chaney are here too. HUD is charged with monitoring and enforcing a broad array of housing antidiscrimination regulations. HUD must balance a number of factors, including, inter alia, expense, personnel resources, and likelihood of success.
Compared to the courts, HUD is far more aware of its policies and priorities, and it should have the discretion to balance them. The FHA was enacted to address the problem of discrimination by federally funded housing providers.
The FHA is similar to other civil rights laws in that it relies heavily on individual civilian complaints for enforcement. These standards apply to all buildings, whether or not they are federally financed, built after March 13, , with four or more housing units. So, the FHAA rejects the set aside approach of the section regulations in favor of broader, more general regulation of newly constructed multi-family housing.
The FHAA requirements may be enforced in four ways. First, persons "aggrieved" by a discriminatory housing practice may file an administrative claim with HUD. HUD then has a mandatory duty to investigate these complaints. If, after investigation, HUD finds a reasonable basis for the complaint, it must bring a charge on behalf of the aggrieved person.
Second, an "aggrieved" person may completely bypass the administrative complaint process and file suit directly in federal court against the alleged discriminator. Under these two provisions, aggrieved persons can obtain compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and costs.
Third, HUD may bring charges alleging discriminatory practices on its own initiative. HUD may also initiate investigations to determine whether to bring enforcement complaints. Importantly, all provisions that concern HUD-initiated prosecution and investigation are couched with permissive language under the FHA.
HUD "may also file such a complaint" ; id. Fourth, the Attorney General may sue if she has reasonable cause to believe that a housing provider has been engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination. Impact of "Affirmatively to Further". Were we to accept this argument we would be creating an independent guideline to limit HUD's discretion that would conflict with the plain text of the statute.
The language of the FHA clearly mandates HUD investigative and enforcement action in only one instance--when HUD is presented with an administrative complaint filed by an aggrieved person alleging discrimination. All HUD-initiated investigative and enforcement actions under the FHA are accompanied by clearly discretionary language. HUD, F. In Shannon, we held that HUD had not fulfilled its duties under the Civil Rights Acts when it approved an apartment project in an urban renewal area without considering the socio-economic impact of its decision.
We held that to ensure that it was affirmatively furthering integration, HUD had a duty to make an informed decision and gather material information concerning the socio-economic impact of a specific land use. In Shannon, we undertook a review of a specific decision by HUD and found that, when making the decision, HUD failed to consider all the relevant factors.
There is no dispute that, much like a prosecutor, once an agency undertakes an enforcement action or makes an affirmative decision, it must proceed fairly and consider the mandates of the governing acts and regulations.
In this case, HUD's regulations recognize that data collection is important; however, it has no affirmative duty under any statute or regulation to initiate nationwide investigation and prosecution of all potentially discriminatory housing practices. The court ruled that, under the section e 5 "affirmatively to further" language, when taking action, HUD's duty includes more than the obligation simply not to discriminate itself, the duty extends to using its grant programs affirmatively to assist in ending housing discrimination.
In other words, under section e 5 , when taking specific action, HUD had a duty to encourage, under the facts of NAACP, desegregation of federally funded housing. The court in NAACP held that the section e 5 "affirmatively to further" language both created a duty and provided a specific standard by which to evaluate HUD's actions.
There is, however, an essential difference between the specific activity reviewed by the court in NAACP and the all-encompassing review we are asked to undertake here. This critical distinction between a focused review of specific agency decisions and broad-based review of general agency policies regarding investigation and enforcement is what distinguishes NAACP and Shannon from this case.
Even assuming that once HUD undertakes a discretionary action, and is required affirmatively to further the policies of the FHA and the FHAA, we may review its actions to ensure that it does, this is not such a case.
To reiterate, the Supreme Court held in Chaney that there is a rebuttable presumption that agency decisions not to enforce are unreviewable. The "affirmatively to further" language cannot override the discretionary impact of the explicit language of the statute.
0コメント