LITTLE JUSTICE IN COURT DECISION ON EVICTIONS

"For some, one strike and you're out sounds like hardball. Well, it is."

President Bill Clinton, 1996.

'Hardball' in the war on drugs, at least on the surface, seems like a
sensible approach. The hardball approach Clinton was referring to was the
"one-strike-and-you're-out" initiative aimed at public housing tenants.

But as is the case with many good ideas, the law of unintended consequences
has come into play.

A bit of background: "One-strike" laws have been on the books since 1988.
They were laxly enforced until the election year of 1996, when President
Clinton made them a high-priority campaign issue. Thus the federal
Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which says housing officials can evict anyone who
knows - or should know - a family member or guest is using drugs. And the
law doesn't just apply to a single person; entire families can be evicted.

After the Clinton initiative, evictions rose 84 percent in six months.

Considering this can involve entire families and people who have not
committed a crime or even had knowledge of a crime, the practice seems a
bit harsh.

And a Supreme Court ruling on the matter Tuesday seems downright bizarre.

Without dissent, the high court said there's no problem with the law.

This is bizarre in large part because of the case that was before them
involving four aged California tenants challenging the law. One incident
involved a retired, partially paralyzed minister whose caretaker smoked
crack in his apartment. The minister didn't believe the charges because
he'd never witnessed such behavior. Another incident involved a woman whose
mentally disabled daughter was nabbed for public intoxication (three blocks
away) and her son was arrested for alleged possession of cocaine (eight
blocks away, and the son didn't live with the woman). The other two people
challenging the case were being evicted because their grandsons were cited
for marijuana possession in a parking lot near the public housing.

This case sounds like a lot of things. Justice isn't one of them.

Lower courts agreed with the tenants. The Supreme Court, which perhaps
needs to be drug tested itself, given some of its recent decisions, didn't.

It should be noted the youngest of the four people involved in the case is
well into her sixties. In fact, people over 61 head some 1.7 million
families in our nation's public housing.

You have to wonder how far this ruling will go. Had it applied to Clinton,
could he have been tossed from the most exclusive public housing in America
if brother Roger engaged in some nefarious activity while on a visit?

"It is not absurd that a local housing authority may sometimes evict a
tenant who had no knowledge of drug-related activity," Chief Justice
William H. Rehnquist said Tuesday.

Think about that for a moment. The nation's highest court officer says it's
OK to punish someone who has not committed a crime - and doesn't even have
knowledge of a crime.

If that's not absurd, you have to wonder what is.

The war on drugs is ratcheting up again. As with any war, tactics and
strategies must be examined. The goal of keeping drugs out of public
housing is a goal worth pursuing until victory emerges. But it's hard to
see how throwing an elderly disabled person out on the street is a victory
for anything.