## Facts

- After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FEMA provided short-term rental assistance to displaced individuals under § 408 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and implementing regulations.
- FEMA generally issued an initial lump-sum payment intended to cover three months’ rent.
- Recipients who remained in need could apply for additional three-month payments as “continued” rental assistance, subject to eligibility criteria and documentation requirements under FEMA’s regulations.
- In heavily impacted areas, FEMA waived home inspections and automatically issued a standardized initial payment to eligible residents.
- A certified class of recipients challenged FEMA’s processes for determining eligibility for continued rental assistance, alleging inadequate notice of denial/termination, insufficient reasons for ineligibility, lack of meaningful review procedures, and arbitrary administration.
- The district court certified the class and issued a preliminary injunction requiring FEMA to continue payments to class members until specified notice, hearing, and appeal procedures were provided.
- FEMA filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the preliminary injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether recipients had a constitutionally protected property interest in continued rental assistance such that due process required the district court’s mandated notice and hearing/review procedures.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction compelling continued payments and prescribing specific procedural mechanisms for FEMA’s continued-assistance determinations.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit vacated the challenged provisions of the preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that, on the preliminary-injunction record, plaintiffs failed to show a substantial likelihood of success supporting the broad procedural and payment mandates imposed on FEMA.
- The court concluded that continued rental assistance under the Stafford Act and regulations reflected significant agency discretion, undercutting an asserted entitlement to ongoing benefits.
- Applying Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found the district court’s detailed, program-wide procedural requirements and continued-payment mandate were not justified at the preliminary stage given statutory design, administrative burdens, and the record developed.
- The court emphasized limits on judicial intervention that would effectively require courts to supervise FEMA’s administration of large-scale disaster-relief programs.

## Legal Principles

- A due process property interest requires a legitimate claim of entitlement grounded in law; discretionary benefits generally do not create an open-ended entitlement to continuation.
- In assessing what process is due, courts balance the private interest, the risk of erroneous deprivation and value of additional safeguards, and the government’s interests and administrative burdens.
- Preliminary injunctive relief requires, among other factors, a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; broad, detailed structural injunctions are disfavored where entitlement is uncertain and statutory schemes confer agency discretion.
- Courts may enforce constitutional minima but should avoid remedies that displace agency judgment in administering congressionally designed emergency-assistance programs absent a clear showing of unlawfulness.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit vacated key portions of a preliminary injunction that required FEMA to continue disaster rental-assistance payments and implement court-ordered notice and review procedures, holding that the plaintiffs had not shown a sufficient likelihood of success on a claim to continued benefits and that the injunction improperly dictated detailed program administration at the preliminary stage.


Ridgely v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 512 F.3d 727 (5th Cir. 2008)