Question 1: The HUD, Participating Jurisdiction, and Citizen Relationship
HUD and the City of Roanoke, VA entered into a contract where the City would accept
federal funding to create housing and follow the regulations of the federal spending clause that
allowed for this to happen. The City was found non-compliant by HUD as they were not
following the regulations in effect, and the HUD-City contract was voided when the City repaid
the federal funds.
When the HUD-City contract was voided, why wasn 't the subsequent City-Citizen
contract voided with cause?
When the city repaid the federal funds, why was the citizen still bound by
existent federal funds in the City-Citizen contract?

Question 2: 4th and 14th Amendment
The District Court for the Western District of Virginia concluded (7:16-cv-07) that City
met the minimal requirements of due process guaranteed in the 14th Amendment for a 4th
amendment seizure of property. The Citizen was allowed a choice of losing either a
Constitutionally protected right of liberty, or losing a Constitutionally protected right of property.
How can a minimal requirement be sufficient when either outcome of a choice allowed to
a Citizen by a local government results in the loss of a Constitutionally protected right? If these
rights deprived then wouldn 't Monell apply?

Question 3: Wright (479 U.S. 418) and Wilder (496 U.S. 498) v. Gonzaga (536 U.S. 273)
In both Wright and Wilder, the Court concluded that a private cause of action exists when
there is a tangible loss of property in a federal spending clause. In Gonzaga, the Court concluded
that there is no private cause of action in a federal spending clause if there is no tangible loss of
property.
Does Gonzaga foreclose on all private causes of action in a federal spending clause, or
just those where there is no tangible loss of property?

Question 1: When the HUD-City contract was voided, why wasn't the subsequent City-Citizen contract voided with cause?