Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 1 5

- AA

- 386
N ELSON B OSTIC , P ETITIONER ,

V
. D ISTRICT OF C OLUMBIA H OUSING A UTHORITY , R ESPONDENT
. On Petition for Review of a n Order of the District of Columbia Housing Authority

( C

- 393

- 14) (Argued November 21 , 2016 Decided June 29, 2017 ) Beth Mellen Harrison , Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia, with whom Jonathan H. Levy , Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia, was on the brief, for p etitioner

. Frederick A. Douglas , with whom Curtis A. Boykin and Alex M. Chintella were on the brief, for r espondent

. Chad A. Readler , Acting Assistant Attorney General, Channing D. Phillips , United States Attorney, and Mark B. Stern and Sarah Carroll , Attorneys, Appellate Staff , Civil Division, U.S. Depart ment of Justice, were on the brief for the United States as amicus curiae in support of r espondent. Before F ISHER and M C L EESE , Associate Judges , and B ELSON , Senior Judge

. M C L EESE , Associate Judge : Petitioner Nelson Bostic seeks review of a decision of the District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA) to terminate him from a housing

- voucher program because Mr. Bostic is required to register for life2

as a convicted sex offender. Mr. Bostic contends that DCHA ’s decision i s contrary
to federal law

. We affirm.

I.

The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program is a rent

- subsidy program funded by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ) and administered in the District by DCHA

. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(a), (o)(1) ( 2015 ) ; 24 C.F.R. § 982.1(a)(1) ( 2016 ) ; D.C. Code § 6

- 202 ( 2016 ) . Participants in the p rogram can rent existing units on the private market, paying a percentage of their income towards rent, with the remaining cost paid by gov ernment subsidy.
42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o).

The federal Housing Act, the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act (QHWRA), and related HUD regulations establish requirements for the program, including policies on admission to a nd termination from the program. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o); 42 U.S.C. §§ 13661

- 64 ( 2015 ); 24 C.F.R. pt. 982 ( 2016 )

. Specifically, QHWRA requires that “ [n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, an owner of federally assisted housing shall prohibit admissio n to such housing for any household that includes any individual who is subject to a lifetime registration3

requirement under a State sex offender registration program.” 42 U.S.C. § 13663(a). A HUD regulation promulgated in 2001 requires local public

- hous ing agencies (PHAs) such as DCHA to prohibit admission to the program of households that include a member subject to lifetime sex

- offender registration. 24 C.F.R. § 982.553(a)(2)(i) ( 2016 ). I n 2013, DCHA promulgated 14 DCMR § 5804.1 (b), mandating termination from the p rogram of any family if “[a]ny member of the household is subject to a lifetime registration requirement under a state or District of Columbia sex offender program.”

We understand the following circumstances to be un disputed for purposes of this appeal. In 1982, Mr. Bostic was convicted of forcible rape in the District of Columbia. He served eighteen years in prison and was released on parole in 2000. Under t he District’s Sex Offender Registration Act , Mr. Bostic i s required to register for life as a convicted sex offender. D.C. Code § 22

- 4001 et seq

. ( 2012 )

. Mr. Bostic registered in 2000, and he has subsequently verified his registration information with the Metropolitan Police Department as required. He has complied with all of the conditions of his parole and has not been arrested since his release.4

Shortly after his release, Mr. Bostic applied to DCHA for housing assistance under the program and was placed on a waiting list. In 2008, Mr. Bostic reached the top of the waiting list. As part of DCHA’s screening of applicants, Mr. Bostic provided a police clearance from the Metropolitan Police Department. Because his conviction was over twenty

- five years old, it did not appear o n the clearance , which looked back only six years . DCHA did not ask Mr. Bostic any other questions about his criminal history. Mr. Bostic was a dmitted to the p rogram and moved into an apartment. Because 24 C.F.R. § 982.553(a)(2)(i) preclude s admission o f lifetime sex

- offender registrants , Mr. Bostic was admitted to the program in violation of federal law. In 2014, DCHA conducted an internal audit and discovered Mr. Bostic’s status as a lifetime sex - offender r egistra n t

. Relying

on 14 DCMR § 5804.1 (b) , DCHA recommended that Mr. Bostic be terminated from the program.

At an informal hearing before DCHA, Mr. Bostic did not dispute his status as a lifetime sex - offender registrant

. Instead, he presented evidence that he requires assistance from a home hea lth

- aide five days a week and could not secure housing without a subsidy because of his debilitating health problems. In addition, Mr. Bostic argued that 14 DCMR § 5804.1 (b) was contrary to federal law.
C onclud ing that 14 DCMR § 5804.1 (b) was mandatory and not contrary to federal5

law , the Hearing Examiner directed that Mr. Bostic be terminated from the
program. DCHA’s Executive Director affirmed the hearing examiner’s decision

.

II.

Mr. Bostic renews his argument that 14 DCMR § 5804.1 (b) i s contrary to federal law

. We conclude otherwise.

Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, federal law preempts local law that “interfere[s] with, or [is] contrary to” federal law

. Hillsborough Cty. v. Automated Med. Lab s. , Inc. , 471 U.S. 707, 71 2 (1985) (internal quotation marks omitted) ; see also U.S. Const. art. VI., cl. 2; Murray v. Motorola, Inc. , 982 A.2d 764, 771 (D.C. 2009). Federal law can expressly or implicitly preempt local law. Hillsborough Cty. , 471 U.S. at 713. Im plied preemption falls into two “not rigidly distinct” categories, “conflict preemption” and “field preemption.” Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council , 530 U.S. 363, 372 n.6 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted)

. C onflict preemption occurs “where compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility, or where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Murray , 982 A.2d at6

771 (internal quotat ion marks, ellipses, and brackets omitted). Field preemption “occurs when federal law so thoroughly occupies a legislative field as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it.” Id. at 77 1

- 7 2 (internal quot ation marks omitted)

.

F or purposes of preemption analysis, federal and local law include s federal and local regulations

. Murray , 982 A.2d at 771

- 72 ; Hillsborough Cty. , 471 U.S. at 713. Thus, a statute enacted by the Council of the District of Columbia can be preempted by either a c ongress ional statute or a federal

- agency regulation

. Goudreau v. Standard Fed. Sa v ings & Loan Ass’n , 511 A.2d 386, 389

- 90 (D.C. 1986). It follows that a regulation promulgated by an agency of the Distric t of Columbia can also be so preempted.

Mr. Bostic does not identify a federal statute or regulation that explicitly precludes DCHA from terminating Mr. Bostic from the program. Rather, Mr. Bostic argues that various statutory provisions and regulations , taken together, demonstrate that Congress and HUD intended to preclude PHAs from terminating lifetime sex

- offender registrants such as Mr. Bostic. Specifically, Mr. Bostic
argues that (1) the provisions governing the authority of PHAs to administer the program do not give PHAs general authority to terminate participants from the7

program , see 24 C.F.R. § 982.54 ( 2017 ) ; (2) the HUD regulations specifically addressing termination from the program are exclusive and do not include status as a lifetime sex - offender registrant , see 24 C.F.R. §§ 982.552, .553 ( 2016 ) ; (3) although QHWRA and its implementing regulations bar lifetime sex - offender registrants from admission to the program , QHWRA does not provide for
termination of such registrants from the p ro gram , see 42 U.S.C. § 13663 ; (4) i n contrast, QHWRA explicitly provide s for termination from the program of certain illegal drug users and alcohol abusers, see 42 U.S.C. § 13662(a); and (5) HUD’s prior statements and guidance supported the conclusion that PHAs may not terminate lifetime sex

- offender registrants from the program, and to the extent that
HUD t akes the contrary position in its amicus brief in this case, HUD’s later position is not entitled to deference .

Mr. Bostic presents a quite substantial argument. Nevertheless, we are ultimately unpersuaded. As previously noted, federal law requires PHAs to prohibit admission to the program of households that include a lifetime sex

offender registra n t. 24 C.F.R. § 982.553(a)(2)(i). M r. Bostic was erroneously admitted to the program despite this prohibition. It would be quite surprising if federal law prohibited DCHA from ever correcting that erroneous admission. We conclude that federal law does not so tie DCHA’s hands.8

In arguing that federal law does preclude DCHA from ever correcting its error in admitting him to the program, Mr. Bostic contends that Congress and HUD could reasonably have concluded that the disruptive effects of withdrawing housing benefits that have a lready been granted, even in error, outweigh the interest in denying housing benefits to lifetime sex

- offender registrants. This contention , however, is contradicted by a variety of provisions that either authorize or require PHAs or private property

- owne rs to deny benefits under the program to lifetime sex

- offender registrants already admitted to the program. Most significantly , federal law prohibits owner s of federally assisted housing from admitting lifetime sex - offender registrant s to such housing. 4 2 U.S.C. § 13663(a). The scope of this provision is not entirely clear, but Mr. Bostic does not appear to dispute that at a minimum the provision would preclude any new property owner from providing Mr. Bostic with housing under the program. HUD argues m ore broadly that the provision would have require d the owner of Mr. Bostic’s apartment to evict Mr. Bostic immediately upon learning that Mr. Bostic was a lifetime sex

- offender registrant

. We need not decide that question, or the related question whether the provision would preclude a property owner under the
program from renewing the lease of a known lifetime sex

- offender registrant

. Rather, it suffices for current purposes to conclude that this provision undermines9

Mr. Bostic’s contention that federal l aw is intended to protect those admitted to the program in error from having benefits under the program subsequently denied on the basis of their status as lifetime sex

- offender registrants. Moreover, it would be absurd to require DCHA to maintain Mr. Bos tic in the program if no property

owner could permissibly admit him to housing under the program.

A number of other provisions also undermine Mr. Bostic’s contention that federal law should be understood to protect his interest in remaining in the program even though he was admitted to the program in violation of federal law. First, QHWRA authorizes PHAs to obtain information about the sex

- offender status of “tenants ” for purposes of “lease enforcement [] and eviction.” 42 U.S.C. § 13663(c). Th at provision clearly signals Congress’s understanding that status as a lifetime se x - offender registrant can be a basis not only for denial of admission to the program but also for eviction

. Second, in some circumstances a PHA also

serves as the property owner under the program. In that situation, a federal regulation authorize s the PHA to evict a tenant who is a lifetime sex

- offender registrant . 24 C.F.R. § 966.4(l)( 2)(iii)(B) ( 2017 ) ( “The PHA may terminate the tenancy only for

. . . [o]ther good cause[, which] includes, but is not limited to

. . . [d]iscovery after admission of facts that made the tenant ineligible.”) ; cf. Zimbelman v. Southern Nev. Reg’l Hous. Auth. , 111 F. Supp. 3d 1148, 1151

- 55 (D.10

Nev. 2015) (upholding PHA’s termination of lease of tenant living in property leased by PHA, where tenant had been admitted to program but was later determined to be registered sex

- offender )

. Here too HUD argues that PH As are not merely authorized but instead required to evict in such circumstances

. We need not decide whether such eviction is merely authorized or instead required, because either way fed eral law does not protect the interests of lifetime sex

offender reg istrants who are erroneously admitted to the program. Third, private property owners also apparently retain the authority to evict tenant s on the ground that they are lifetime sex

- offender registrants

. 24 C.F.R. § § 5.851(b) ( 2017 ) (noting that property owners “retain authority to terminate tenancy on any basis that is otherwise authorized”) , 982.310(a) ( property owner may terminate tenancy during term of lease based on “[v] iolation of federal, State, or local law that imposes obligations on the tenant in connection with the occupancy or use of the premises; or .

. . [o]ther good cause”).

In sum , we conclude that federal law on balance undermines rather than supports Mr. Bostic’s claim that he is entitled as a matter of federal law to remain in the program even though he was admitted to the program in violation of federal law. See generally Zimbelman , 111 F. Supp. 3d at 1155 (“

. . . Congress intended to prohibit lifetime sex offender registrants from being in this public housing11

program -- indeed, Congress passed 42 U.S.C. § 13663 to prohibit sex offender registrants in housing programs. It would be absurd to conclude Congress intended to prohibit terminating a lifetime sex offender registrant who mistakenly made it into the system.”). We therefore hold that DCHA permissibly terminated Mr. Bostic from the program.

In light of our holding that federal law permits DCHA , relying on 14 DCMR § 5804.1 (b), to terminate Mr. Bostic from the program, we need not and do not decide whether federal la w itself requires that DCHA do so. We note, however, that the cases on which Mr. Bostic principally relies address the latter question

-- whether federal law itself provides a basis for terminating lifetime sex

- offender registrants from the program

-- rat her than the question we decide today

-- whether federal law precludes a PHA from terminat ing such registrants from the program based on provisions of local law

. Miller v. McCormick , 605 F. Supp. 2d 296, 30 4

- 13 (D. Me. 2009 ) ; Perkins

- Bey v. Hous. Auth. , N o. 4:11CV310JCH, 2011 WL 939292, *2

- 4 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 14, 2011); Hous. Auth. v. Ali Kenyatta Bros. , 2013 WL 3766903, at *4

- 8 (Conn. Super. Ct. June 21, 2013) ; Bonseiro v. N ew York City Dep ’ t Hous. Pres. & Dev

. , No. 14793/11, 2012 WL 51719 8 , *2

- 5 ( N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 15, 2012)

.12
III .

Mr. Bostic also argues that it would be impermissibly retroactive to apply 14 DCMR § 5804.1 (b) to him , because that regulation was promulgated years after Mr. Bostic was admitted to the program. M r. Bostic, however, did not properly raise this claim before DCHA

.

Before the Hearing Officer, Mr. Bostic argued primarily that 14 DCMR § 5 8 04 .1 was precluded by federal law. Although Mr. Bostic did argue that terminating him from the program would be unfair under the circumstances, he did not argue that the regulation could not lawfully be applied to him because it was impermissibly retroactive. The Hearing Officer therefore understandably did not address that issue. In his appeal to the Executive Di rector, Mr. Bostic once again did not raise any retroactiv it y claim. The Executive Director there fore did not address the issue.

Mr. Bostic did raise a retroactivity claim in a letter request ing reconsideration of the Executive Director’s final decision

. As Mr. Bostic acknowledges, however, the DCHA regulations governing the informal

- hearing process do not provide for motions to reconsider the Executive Director’s decision.13

14 DCMR § 8905 ( 2017 )

. That may explain why, as far as the record reveals, the Executive Director never responded to Mr. Bostic’s letter. In any event, even in the context of formal motions for reconsideration, claims raised for the first time on reconsideration are generally t reated as forfeited. See , e.g. , Jemison v. National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. , 720 A.2d 275, 282 (D.C. 1998) (“[W]e conclude that [appellant] waived [his argument] in this case by failing to raise it at any time before filing the motion for reconsider ation. ” ) ; BNSF Ry. v. Surface Transp. Bd. , 3 72 U.S. App. D.C. 1 , 7, 453 F.3d 473, 479 (200 6 ) ( claim presented for first time in motion to reconsider before Board “came too late to command the attention of the Board, let alone that of this court”).

“In the absence of exceptional circumstances, a reviewing court will refuse to consider contentions not presented before the administrative agency at the appropriate time.” Goodman v. District of Columbia Rental Hous. Comm’n , 573 A.2d 1293, 1301 (D.C. 199 0) . We see no exceptional circumstances in this case.
Ac cordingly, we decline to address Mr. Bostic’s retroactivity argument on the
merits. We do note, however, our doubt that application of DCHA’s termination regulation to Mr. Bostic impermissibly inte rfered with any legitimate interest of Mr. Bostic, given that Mr. Bostic was originally admitted to the program in violation of federal law.14

I V .

For the foregoing reasons, the order of the DCHA is

Affirmed.