37 F.3d 442 (9th Cir. 1994)
-HUD determined that Washington’s state court eviction procedures satisfied the elements of due process, allowing the public housing authorities to evict tenants accused of criminal activity without first affording them an informal grievance hearing.
-March, 1992: the Seattle Housing Authority served Davidson with an eviction notice stating that she would not be afforded a grievance hearing because her eviction was due to alleged criminal activity.
-Davidson and Yesler (P) brought suit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, claiming HUD’s determination was invalid because it was made without giving public housing tenants notice and an opportunity to comment.
-The district court granted summary judgment for HUD.
-Did P have standing to bring this action?
-Pursuant to Section:10.1, was HUD required to use notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures in making the determination that Washington state court eviction procedures met HUD’s due process standards?
-Yes, case reversed and remanded.
-Plaintiffs had an injury-in-fact, the injury was traceable to HUD’s action, and Plaintiffs’ interests in the terms and conditions of their tenancies fell within the zone of interests protected by the statutes they alleged HUD violated. Therefore, Plaintiffs had standing.
-Yes. When HUD decided that Washington’s state eviction procedures satisfy the basic due process elements, it promulgated a substantive rule. Since it did so without providing notice and an opportunity to comment as required by its own Section:10.1 regulation, the rule thus promulgated was invalid.
-Adjudications resolve disputes among specific individuals; rulemaking affects the rights of broad classes of unspecified individuals.
-HUD’s own requirements under Section:10.1 mandate that HUD proceed by notice and comment rule making whenever it promulgates a substantive rule.
-In this case, HUD’s determination had no immediate, concrete effect on anyone, but affected the rights of a broad category of individuals that were not yet identified. Therefore, HUD’s determination was a rule, subject to the notice and comment requirement.
-Plaintiffs had no standing to challenge HUD’s action because none of them were actually threatened with an eviction stemming from drug-related or other criminal activities, and therefore suffered no injury-in-fact.