## Facts

- Thelma Joy, a low-income tenant with four minor children, leased an apartment in the Joseph Paul Apartments, a complex built and operated under § 221(d)(3) of the National Housing Act with extensive federal assistance.
- The written lease provided that after the first year the tenancy would continue month-to-month, and either party could terminate at the end of a term with 30 days’ notice.
- Joy’s unit had an approximate market rent of $157 per month; Joy paid $48 and the FHA paid the balance through a federal rent supplement program.
- After the first year, the landlord served Joy with a 30-day notice to vacate that stated no reason for termination.
- Joy remained in possession while she brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging eviction without cause violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

## Issues

1. Whether a private owner’s decision to evict a tenant from a federally subsidized, heavily regulated § 221(d)(3) project constitutes state action for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment and § 1983.
2. Whether the statutory and regulatory scheme governing § 221(d)(3) projects and rent supplements limits eviction to good cause, despite a lease clause permitting termination without cause.
3. Whether due process requires notice of reasons and a meaningful opportunity to contest termination before eviction from such quasi-public housing.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment permitting eviction solely because the lease term had ended.
- The court held that the project’s federal financing, rent supplementation, regulatory control, local governmental participation, and use of state eviction mechanisms created sufficient governmental involvement to constitute state action.
- The court concluded that tenants in this federal housing program have a protected interest in continued occupancy that may not be terminated arbitrarily.
- The lease’s no-cause termination provision was unenforceable as applied in this context; eviction must be supported by good cause.
- Due process protections apply, requiring notice of the reasons for termination and a meaningful chance to contest them before an impartial decision-maker.

## Legal Principles

- Extensive government financing, subsidy, regulatory control, and participation in a housing program can make a nominally private landlord’s eviction decision attributable to the government for § 1983 and Fourteenth Amendment purposes.
- Tenants in federally subsidized and regulated low-income housing may possess a constitutionally protected property interest in continued occupancy derived from the statutory and regulatory scheme, not merely from private contract terms.
- In quasi-public federally assisted housing, eviction must be limited by standards that prevent arbitrary or discriminatory removals; a good-cause requirement applies.
- When a protected occupancy interest is at stake and state action exists, due process requires timely notice of reasons and an opportunity to be heard before termination is enforced.

## Conclusion

The court treated eviction from a § 221(d)(3), rent-supplemented, heavily regulated housing project as state action and held that eligible tenants may not be removed without good cause and basic procedural due process, rendering no-cause termination clauses ineffective in that setting.


Joy v. Daniels, 479 F.2d 1236 (4th Cir. 1973)