TENANTS CAN BE EVICTED FOR OTHERS' DRUG USE

Justices rule for 'zero tolerance' in public housing

WASHINGTON -- Public housing authorities can evict an entire family
when someone in the household is caught with drugs, even if the others
knew nothing about the wrongdoing, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

Brushing aside concerns about innocent tenants, the court said the
federal law at issue is a reasonable response to what Congress called
''a reign of terror'' by drug traffickers. The justices said those who
cannot control crime in their households are a threat to all tenants
and stressed that housing agencies act as landlords whose leases allow
the evictions.

''With drugs leading to murders (and) muggings . . . it was reasonable
for Congress to permit no-fault evictions,'' Chief Justice William
Rehnquist wrote for the court.

The decision in the California case was unanimous, but Justice Stephen
Breyer did not participate. His brother, U.S. District Court Judge
Charles Breyer, earlier had barred enforcement of the law.

A federal appeals court had affirmed that action and ruled that the
1988 law could not apply to the innocent without raising questions of
due process of law.

The high court's reversal reinstates a ''zero tolerance'' policy
vigorously pushed by federal officials in the 1990s, and clears up a
conflict in lower courts. But tenants' advocates say it could hurt the
poor, the elderly and victims of domestic abuse who have little power
over people in their households.

''The decision puts poor people out on the street for activity they
couldn't control,'' said Steven Shapiro, legal director at the
American Civil Liberties Union.

The law at issue requires public housing agencies to use leases that
say ''any drug-related criminal activity'' by ''a public housing
tenant, any member of the tenant's household, or any guest'' can be
grounds for eviction. The Department of Housing and Urban
Development's strict interpretation was challenged by four tenants of
the Oakland Housing Authority who faced eviction because of drug use
by relatives or guests.

Rehnquist said the law plainly applies to all tenants in a household.
He rejected arguments that tenants who were not at fault could not
constitutionally be deprived of a property interest.

Separately, the court heard arguments over whether states tread on
free-speech rights when they ban judicial candidates from revealing
their views on legal or political issues. Several justices seemed
skeptical of the Minnesota rule, which is patterned after an American
Bar Association model code and used in eight other states.

Justice Antonin Scalia asked why a state would try to prevent a
candidate from letting voters know what kind of judge he would be.
Justice Anthony Kennedy said it appeared that Minnesota did not
''trust the electorate'' to assess a candidate's judicial
temperament.

Minnesota says the rule promotes an independent and impartial
judiciary. Challengers say candidates may be barred from promising to
rule in certain ways but not from stating their views.