Ridgely v. Federal Emergency Management Agency
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
512 F.3d 727 (2008)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (defendant) was authorized under the Stafford Act (the act) to provide rental assistance to individuals displaced from their homes due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. To this end, FEMA awarded rental assistance to eligible individuals for a three-month period, after which recipients could apply for continued rent assistance if needed. FEMA’s implementing regulations for the program established eligibility criteria and outlined the particular circumstances in which FEMA may provide assistance to qualifying individuals. The regulations further provided criteria for continued rent-assistance eligibility, including submission of permanent housing plans and rent receipts, among other documents. Individuals who received rental assistance (recipients) (plaintiffs) but were later deemed ineligible for continued assistance sued, seeking a preliminary injunction and contending that FEMA’s program administration was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Due Process Clause. The district court granted the injunction, requiring FEMA to make payments to the recipients until certain additional procedures were implemented. FEMA appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (King, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.