## Facts

- Teresa Basco participated in the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program administered by Hillsborough County’s public housing authority (PHA).
- Basco leased a home from her mother; the lease listed only Basco, her husband, and their five minor children as residents.
- The PHA and the landlord entered a Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contract limiting residents to those listed in the lease.
- HUD rules barred unauthorized residents but allowed house guests; the PHA’s Administrative Plan defined an unauthorized household member as a non-listed person present more than 15 consecutive days without approval or 30 total days in a 12-month period.
- The PHA alleged that Emanuel Jones was living in the unit as an unauthorized resident.
- The PHA’s evidence primarily consisted of a police report and investigator notes relaying that Joseph Basco told an officer Jones was staying there; the materials did not state how long Jones stayed and were not independently corroborated.
- After an informal hearing, the PHA terminated Basco’s Section 8 subsidy for having an unauthorized household member; internal review upheld the termination.
- The Bascos sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming deprivation of benefits without due process; the district court granted summary judgment to the PHA, and the Bascos appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Section 8 participants have a protected property interest in continued benefits requiring due process before termination.
2. Whether due process and applicable HUD/PHA standards permit termination based solely on uncorroborated hearsay.
3. Whether the PHA produced sufficient evidence that the alleged guest met the Administrative Plan’s time-based definition of an unauthorized household member.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment for the defendants and remanded.
- The court held that the termination decision lacked sufficient evidentiary support because the PHA did not prove the time element required by its own visitor rule.
- The court concluded that uncorroborated hearsay, without reliable evidence addressing the critical duration-of-stay requirement, did not satisfy due process for terminating Section 8 assistance.

## Legal Principles

- Continued receipt of Section 8 housing assistance constitutes a protected property interest that cannot be terminated without due process.
- Due process in voucher-termination proceedings allows consideration of hearsay, but the agency must rely on evidence that is sufficiently reliable and adequate to support the factual findings underlying termination.
- When an agency’s rules define an “unauthorized household member” using specific time thresholds, the agency must present evidence establishing those thresholds; conclusory or detail-free allegations are insufficient.
- A termination decision unsupported by substantial evidence of a rule violation, measured against the agency’s own standards, violates due process and cannot be sustained on summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that the PHA violated due process by terminating Section 8 benefits without reliable, sufficient evidence that an alleged guest exceeded the Administrative Plan’s time limits for unauthorized residency, and it reversed and remanded for further proceedings.


Basco v. Machin, 514 F.3d 1177 (11th Cir. 2008)