With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in violation of the FHA and applicable civil rights laws. Thus, each named plaintiff has alleged facts that demonstrate that the RAC defendants have invaded a legally protected interest and that such injury is redressable by injunctive relief. For similar reasons, we find that the named plaintiffs have standing to bring suit on their CDBG claim. Furthermore, the claims are not mooted by the introduction of a July 2, 1990, HUD notice to all Section 8 PHAs directing them to advise certificate holders that they may move within the same MSA of the PHA or a contiguous MSA. If RAC fails to communicate this information to the economically disadvantaged minority certificate holders, then RAC still is in violation of civil rights laws. Havens, 455 U.S. at 372-74, 102 S.Ct. at 1120-22 (<HOLDING>); see also Lujan, — U.S. at-n. 4, 112 S.Ct. at

A: holding that the department of agricultures rural housing services alleged failure to implement the fair housing act was not discrete agency action for purposes of  7061
B: holding that treble damages under the housing and rent act are remedial in nature
C: recognizing provisions of the fair housing act that forbid false statements that housing is unavailable to a person because of his race
D: holding that a black tester posing as a renter to collect evidence of racial steering practices in housing had standing to seek damages because the fha conferred the legal right to be given truthful information about housing availability
D.