Crow Tribal Housing Authority v. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, 781 F.3d 1095

Crow Tribal Housing Authority (Crow Housing) received NAHASDA block grants from HUD beginning in 1998; HUD later determined it had overpaid Crow for ineligible lease-to-own units.
HUD sent letters between 2001 and 2003 notifying Crow of overpayments and proposing repayment via deductions from future grants; Crow did not respond until late 2003 and then requested documents and later an on-site review.
HUD conducted a three-day on-site FCAS review in August 2004, concluded total overpayments (about $1.3M), and informed Crow of the right to appeal; Crow sought reconsideration but did not request a hearing.
Crow sued in district court claiming HUD violated NAHASDA notice-and-hearing requirements by recovering overpayments without a hearing; the district court found a violation under 25 U.S.C. §§ 4161 and 4165 and remanded for a hearing.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether HUD acted under § 4161 (which mandates notice and hearing for findings of substantial noncompliance), or § 4165 (which authorizes adjustments after reviews/audits and has regulatory hearing procedures), and whether HUD violated any hearing requirement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Did HUD act under § 4161 (substantial noncompliance)?	Crow: HUD’s recovery amounted to action under § 4161 triggering mandatory hearing.	HUD: It did not find "substantial noncompliance" and therefore § 4161 does not apply.	Held: HUD did not act under § 4161; letters and conduct did not find substantial noncompliance.
2. Did HUD act under § 4165 (post-audit adjustments)?	Crow: HUD’s recovery invoked § 4165 and its hearing protections.	HUD: It relied on common-law authority or did not trigger § 4165.	Held: HUD’s August 2004 on-site review qualified as a § 4165 review and adjustments were within § 4165 authority.
3. If § 4165 applied, did HUD violate the hearing requirement?	Crow: HUD recovered funds without affording the required hearing.	HUD: § 4165’s implementing regulation required a hearing only if the recipient requested one within 30 days; Crow never requested a hearing.	Held: No violation; regulation (24 C.F.R. § 1000.532(b) as in effect) provides a right to request a hearing within 30 days and Crow did not request one.

Fort Belknap Hous. Dep’t v. Office of Pub. & Indian Hous., 726 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2013) (addressed whether HUD action to recoup overpayments invoked § 4161 jurisdiction and the meaning of "substantial noncompliance")
Lummi Tribe v. United States, 106 Fed. Cl. 623 (Fed. Cl. 2012) (concluded HUD actions following OIG audit fell under § 4165 and implicated regulatory hearing procedures)
ABKCO Music, Inc. v. LaVere, 217 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2000) (clarifying legislation may be applied retroactively as statement of original meaning)
Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944) (explains deference to agency interpretations based on persuasiveness)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for deference to agency statutory interpretations)