EVICTIONS UPHELD

We find it very hard to disagree with a unanimous decision of the U.S.
Supreme Court written by the court's Chief Justice. A case in point is the
court's decision this week to uphold a 1988 federal law that allows local
public housing authorities to evict tenants on the very first occasion of
drug use or involvement with drug traffic.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for a unanimous eight-member
court, ruled that the 1988 act is unambiguous and that local housing
authorities have a legitimate interest in limiting drug use and drug
traffic that may pose a threat to other public housing residents. Citing a
drug-dealer-imposed "reign of terror" in public housing, Rehnquist said the
law is really not much different than leases used by private landlords.

Tenants in federal housing sign agreements to make sure no "drug-related
criminal activity" will take place "on or near the premise" and further
agree in writing that they will be evicted if the terms are violated. The
plaintiffs in the case were all from Oakland and had touching stories to
tell, but the unanimous court was unmoved by them. Two of the plaintiffs
had grandchildren who were caught smoking marijuana in the public-housing
parking lot. One had a daughter found with cocaine near the apartment and
the fourth was a disabled 75-year-old man whose caretaker was found with
cocaine in the man's apartment.

Every one of these stories was of a type anticipated by Congress at the
time the act was passed.

Denver public housing officials welcomed the court's decision, saying that,
in the past, it has been difficult to evict tenants in cases where some
member of the family has been convicted of a drug violation. The argument
of other family members, here, as elsewhere, has typically been that they
didn't know of the prohibited behavior and played no role in it.

The Supreme Court decision in this case is somewhat unusual. Liberal and
conservative members of the court signed on to Rehnquist's decision and not
a single justice wrote a separate opinion.

Civil rights leaders fretted after the decision that many tenants may now
find themselves homeless, to which our response would be: Not if they are
properly informed by housing officials about the clear impact of the
court's decision and choose to abide by it.