Milwaukee City Housing Authority v. Felton Cobb
860 N.W.2d 267
Wis.2015Background
- Cobb, a tenant in Milwaukee public housing, was cited by a Housing Authority officer for smoking marijuana in his unit; the Authority issued a 14‑day eviction notice without a statutory five‑day "right to remedy" under Wis. Stat. § 704.17(2)(b).
- Cobb conceded the conduct violated the lease (which mirrors federal § 1437d(l)(6)) but claimed eviction was invalid because Wisconsin law required a five‑day cure period before termination.
- The Housing Authority argued federal public‑housing law (42 U.S.C. § 1437d(l)(6)) preempts the Wisconsin right‑to‑cure for drug‑related criminal activity.
- The circuit court found drug use proven and ruled for the Authority; the court of appeals reversed, holding the state cure right applied.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review to decide whether § 1437d(l)(6) preempts Wis. Stat. § 704.17(2)(b) when eviction is based on "drug‑related criminal activity."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cobb) | Defendant's Argument (Housing Authority) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(l)(6) preempts Wis. Stat. § 704.17(2)(b) for evictions based on drug‑related criminal activity | § 704.17(2)(b)'s five‑day right to remedy applies and does not conflict with federal law; compliance with both is possible | Federal law requires leases allowing eviction for any drug‑related activity; a state right to cure would frustrate Congress' goal and remove local discretion to evict | The federal provision preempts the state right‑to‑remedy in drug‑related public‑housing evictions; state cure provision cannot limit federal‑authorized eviction discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Housing & Urban Dev. v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (U.S. 2002) (federal statute requires lease terms allowing eviction for drug activity but entrusts eviction decisions to local housing authorities)
- Scarborough v. Winn Residential L.L.R., 890 A.2d 249 (D.C. 2006) (District of Columbia Court of Appeals held local cure rights preempted where they would undermine federal anti‑drug objectives)
- Boston Housing Authority v. Garcia, 871 N.E.2d 1073 (Mass. 2007) (Massachusetts court held "innocent tenant" defense preempted by federal requirement to permit eviction for household drug activity)
- Barnett Bank of Marion Cnty., N.A. v. Nelson, 517 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1996) (framework for obstacle preemption: state law preempted if it stands as an obstacle to Congress' objectives)