## Facts

- Several Massachusetts local public housing authorities (PHAs) administered federal Section 8 housing vouchers and maintained waiting lists because available funding could not serve all eligible families.
- The PHAs used local residency preferences in ranking applicants for vouchers.
- Plaintiffs were primarily nonresident applicants who alleged they were disproportionately minority and extremely low-income.
- Plaintiffs alleged the residency preferences reduced nonresidents’ chances of receiving vouchers, undermined federal income-targeting requirements (including the “75% rule” for extremely low-income families), and conflicted with HUD fair-housing obligations.
- Plaintiffs also alleged the preferences had a disparate racial impact by limiting minority families’ access to suburban voucher opportunities and perpetuating segregated housing patterns.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction requiring changes to the PHAs’ waiting-list and preference practices; the PHAs took an interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court reasonably found a likelihood of success on claims that residency-preference practices violated Section 8 statutory and regulatory requirements, including income-targeting obligations.
2. Whether the district court reasonably found a likelihood of success on Fair Housing Act disparate-impact and related fair-housing claims arising from the residency preferences.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in issuing preliminary injunctive relief under the four-factor test (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of hardships, and public interest).

## Decision

- The First Circuit largely affirmed the preliminary injunction.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding plaintiffs showed a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits to justify interim relief.
- The court agreed that the evidence and legal theories raised serious questions that residency preferences, as implemented, could conflict with Section 8 targeting requirements and fair-housing duties.
- The court upheld the district court’s findings of likely irreparable harm and concluded the balance of hardships and public interest supported temporary restraints while the case proceeded.
- The court treated its conclusions as provisional, emphasizing that the appeal concerned preliminary relief rather than final merits determinations.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of a preliminary injunction is limited: legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, but the overall grant of preliminary relief is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Preliminary injunction analysis applies a four-factor test: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of hardships, and public interest.
- Local PHAs administering federally funded Section 8 vouchers remain subject to federal statutory objectives and HUD regulatory constraints when adopting and applying local preference systems.
- A local residency preference may be subject to challenge when its operation plausibly undermines income-targeting requirements for extremely low-income households.
- Under the Fair Housing Act, plaintiffs may proceed on a disparate-impact theory where evidence supports a substantial risk that a policy predictably disadvantages minority applicants and perpetuates segregation; such a showing can support preliminary relief.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit largely upheld interim restrictions on Section 8 residency preferences, concluding the district court reasonably found likely statutory and Fair Housing Act violations and that irreparable harm, equitable considerations, and the public interest supported preliminary injunctive relief pending final adjudication.


Langlois v. Abington Hous. Auth., 207 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2000)