{"id":1297,"date":"2019-04-27T18:04:08","date_gmt":"2019-04-27T23:04:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1297"},"modified":"2019-10-21T15:00:21","modified_gmt":"2019-10-21T20:00:21","slug":"bostic-v-d-c-housing-authority-d-c-ct-app-2017","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/04\/27\/bostic-v-d-c-housing-authority-d-c-ct-app-2017\/","title":{"rendered":"Bostic v. D.C. Housing Authority (D.C. Ct. App. 2017)."},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Bostic v. D.C. Housing Authority, 162 A.3d 170 (D.C. 2017)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Appellant sought review from D.C. Court of Appeals of the decision of the District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA) terminating him from a low-income housing voucher program on the grounds that he was subject to a lifetime requirement that he register as a sex offender for a 1982 offense.<\/p>\n


\nHolding:\u00a0<\/strong> District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that DCHA decision was not contrary to federal law. Housing and Urban Development regulations promulgated in 2001 prohibited admission into low-income housing voucher programs of people required to register for life as sex offenders. In 2013, DCHA adopted similar regulations. Decision to terminate him was not contrary to federal law, and therefore the decision of the DCHA was not unlawful or otherwise preempted by federal law.<\/p>\n

Appellant additionally raised an Ex Post Facto claim, but since this was not addressed before the DCHA, the Court declined to address it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n