In Thorpe v. Housing Authority of the City of Durham (1966), the US Supreme Court ruled that a public housing authority must provide tenants with reasons for eviction and an opportunity to respond before they can be evicted from their homes. The case involved Mrs. Mary Thorpe, who was served an eviction notice by her landlord, the Durham City Housing Authority without any explanation or chance to contest it. She sued on grounds that this violated her due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court agreed in a 5-4 decision, stating that while public housing authorities have broad discretion in managing their properties, they are still bound by constitutional requirements when taking actions affecting tenant's property interests such as leasehold rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Thorpe v. Housing Authority of the City of Durham, Justice Harlan argued that federal courts should not interfere with local housing authorities' decisions unless there is a clear violation of constitutional rights or federal law. He believed that Mrs. Thorpe's eviction did not involve any substantial federal question and thus, it was inappropriate for the Supreme Court to intervene in this case. Furthermore, he contended that even if HUD regulations were applicable here (which he disputed), they would only require procedural fairness rather than substantive justification for an eviction decision made by a local housing authority. Therefore, according to him, since Mrs. Thorpe had been given notice and opportunity to contest her eviction before it took place - which she didn't do - no further review was necessary under these regulations.