Court Opinion

ID: 9452191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:32:36.984061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:06.381539
License: Public Domain

J. SKELLY WRIGHT, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
Petitioner is the defendant in an eviction action brought by her landlord in the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions. She alleged and sought to prove before that court that she was being evicted solely because she had given information to the District of Columbia authorities concerning violations of statutes and regulations governing the sanitary conditions on the premises. On a preliminary motion before that court, *629Judge Greene found that “it does appear from that testimony that the defendant has proved prima facie that the notice to quit was issued and possession is being sought in this Court solely because of her complaint to the District housing authorities. The testimony shows that defendant informed these authorities of violations of the housing statutes and regulations with respect to the premises; that the District of Columbia has inspected the premises; that as a result of the inspections certain violations of the law were discovered; and that plaintiff has been given time within which to correct the violations or face prosecution.”
When the case came on for trial before a jury and another judge, that judge refused to permit the tenant’s defense to go to the jury and directed a verdict for the landlord. He thereupon issued the eviction order which is the subject of the stay proceedings before this court. The landlord’s position here, which the General Sessions Court recognized in granting judgment, is that his eviction suit is for non-payment of the rent, and that proof of any intention to evict for other reasons is irrelevant.
It is not seriously questioned that every citizen has the right, if not the duty, of informing his government of a violation of the law, and that a court of equity, on a proper showing, may enjoin any interference with that right. Compare United States v. Beaty, 6 Cir., 288 F.2d 653 (1961).1 Indeed, an interference with such a right may be punishable under the criminal statutes of the United States. In re Quarles and Butler, 158 U.S. 532, 15 S.Ct. 959, 39 L.Ed. 1080 (1895).2
Petitioner in these proceedings sought neither an injunction against nor a criminal prosecution of her landlord. She merely asserted the right in the court below to show that her landlord’s purpose in evicting her was, not nonpayment of the rent, but to punish her for advising the proper District of Columbia authorities concerning sanitary conditions on the premises which were in violation of the law. As Judge Greene’s excellent opinion makes clear,3 <lf this defense can be proved, then a court may not participate with the landlord in the implementation of his illegal purpose../ The trial court here should not have denied petitioner the opportunity to make her defense. Moreover it appears, to me at least, that the petitioner has made a strong showing that she is likely to prevail on the merits of her appeal.
*630As to the other requirements for a stay outlined in Virginia Petroleum Job. Ass’n v. Federal Power Com’n, 104 U.S.App. D.C. 106, 110, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (1958), petitioner has complied with her burden there as well. Certainly being evicted into the street is irreparable damage. Respondent suggests that petitioner can raise the money for a supersedeas from charitable institutions. I think petitioner need not be relegated to charitable institutions as long as a court sits to enforce her rights. Moreover, the issuance of the stay will not substantially harm the respondent since the condition of the stay is the prompt payment of rent. As to where the public interest lies, I suggest that the public interest lies in keeping this family housed, at least until the courts can determine petitioner’s rights.

. In Beaty the court upheld an injunction restraining a landlord from evicting tenants because the tenants sought to exercise the right to vote. See also United States v. Bruce, 5 Cir., 353 F.2d 474 (1965), in which the court held that a landowner may not exercise his right to keep unauthorized persons off his property if the landowner has the “bad intent of interfering with the right to vote.”

. In Quarles, 158 U.S. at pages 535 and 537-538, 15 S.Ct. at pages 960 and 961, the Court said:
“It is the duty and the right, not only of every peace officer of the United States, but of every citizen, to assist in prosecuting, and in securing the punishment of, any breach of the peace of the United States. * * * It is likewise his right and his duty to communicate to the executive officers any information which he has of the commission of an offense against those laws * * *
* * * * *
“The necessary conclusion is * * * that this right is secured to the citizen by the Constitution of the United States; and that a conspiracy to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate him in the free exercise or enjoyment of this right, or because of his having exercised it, is punishable under section 5508 of the Revised Statutes.”

. A landlord may evict for any legal reason or no reason. What he may not do is evict for an illegal purpose such as punishing the tenant for exercising her constitutional right to report law violations on the premises to the proper authorities. See United States v. Beaty, supra; United States v. Bruce, supra Note 1; John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 89 U.S.App.D.C. 261, 191 F.2d 483 (1951). See also N. L. R. B. v. Lamar Creamery Co., 5 Cir., 246 F.2d 8 (1957), in which the court held it to be an unfair labor practice to deny employment to an applicant for a job because he had filed charges against the employer.