PRESUMED GUILTY FEDERAL LAW ON PUBLIC HOUSING PUNISHES DRUG USERS AND THE
INNOCENT

Though the U.S. Supreme Court is essentially conservative these days,
members from both camps have at times veered from their presumed political
corners.

That makes it hard to say how the justices will rule on a law that both
Bill Clinton and George W. Bush agree on -- public housing's so called
one-strike-and-you're-out rule, but which has on occasion produced a travesty.

In 1988 Congress passed a one-strike eviction law for residents of public
housing, but it was not vigorously enforced until the Clinton
administration cracked down in 1996.

The law says that when anyone in a family uses, sells or possesses drugs
the entire family will be evicted. Even before a conviction.

Critics say that applying the law without exception is unfair to family
members who neither knew of nor condoned the drug use.

In a case involving four elderly people evicted from California public
housing, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Department of
Housing and Urban Development policy needlessly harsh and declared it
unenforceable in the nine states in its jurisdiction.

The Bush administration has asked the Supreme Court to throw out that
decision and uphold the policy.

In all four cases the elderly residents were victimized by family members
or caregivers who were involved with drugs without their knowledge or approval.

That made no difference under the HUD policy. The same kind of draconian
law allows states to confiscate the homes of innocent people because their
children or spouse is accused of drug dealing. Both are wrong. There has to
be middle ground.

Public housing project leaders say the threat of eviction is a deterrent to
criminals.

"Without the one-strike, it may become more difficult to address the issues
of drugs and criminal activity," one lawyer for the housings units said.

That is not the Constitution's problem. Injustice is.

Certainly criminals should not enjoy public housing.

But the question for the high court is whether the innocent must be
punished along with the guilty.