Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group, 508 U.S. 10, 12 (1993)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12

Cite as: 508 U. S. 10 (1993)

Opinion of the Court

creases based on shoddy comparisons, their remedy is to challenge the particular study, not to deny HUD's authority to make comparisons.3

In sum, we think that the contract language is plain that no project owner may claim entitlement to formula-based rent adjustments that materially exceed market rents for comparable units. We also think it clear that 1.9d—which by its own terms clearly envisions some comparison "between the rents charged for assisted and comparable unassisted units"—affords the Secretary sufficient discretion to design and implement comparability studies as a reasonable means of effectuating its mandate. In this regard, we observe that 1.9d expressly assigns to "the Government" the determination of whether there exist material differences between the rents charged for assisted and comparable unassisted units. Because we find that respondents have no contract right to unobstructed formula-based rent adjustments, we have no occasion to consider whether 801 of the Reform Act unconstitutionally abrogated such a right.

III

For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is

Reversed.

3 Petitioners acknowledge that "[a] comparability study must . . . satisfy requirements of administrative reasonableness and 'is reviewable under administrative law principles.' " Reply Brief for Petitioners 16, n. 23 (quoting Sheridan Square Partnership v. United States, 761 F. Supp. 738, 745, n. 3 (Colo. 1991)).

21

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12

Last modified: October 4, 2007