In the case of Wright et al. v. City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that tenants in public housing could sue their local housing authority under Section 1983 for overcharging them for utilities in violation of federal law governing low-income housing programs. The court held that a tenant's right to be charged only actual utility costs was a federally protected right and therefore enforceable under Section 1983, which provides remedies for violations of rights secured by federal statutes. This decision clarified that statutory rights can form the basis for lawsuits under Section 1983 if they create binding obligations rather than merely express congressional preferences or policy goals.

In the dissenting opinion for Wright et al. v. City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Justice Powell argued that the majority's decision to allow tenants to sue under Section 1983 was a misinterpretation of Congressional intent. He asserted that Congress intended for disputes regarding utility allowances in public housing to be handled administratively through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), not judicially via lawsuits in federal court. Furthermore, he contended that allowing such suits could potentially flood courts with litigation over minor administrative decisions better suited for resolution by HUD officials who possess expertise in housing policy matters. Thus, according to Justice Powell’s dissenting view, this ruling undermines congressional intent and disrupts an efficient administrative process designed specifically to handle these types of issues.