U.S. SUPREME COURT TAKES ON DRUG-RELATED EVICTION CASE

Case Involves Tenants Who May Face Eviction

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday accepted the case of four elderly Oakland
Housing Authority residents who have been threatened with eviction because
their relatives or guests had drugs on public housing property.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in January shot down the housing
authority's "one strike and you're out" policy, ruling tenants couldn't be
punished for drug activity of which they had no knowledge or control.

Now the nation's highest court, at the Bush administration's urging, will
weigh in to set a precedent affecting every public housing resident in the
nation.

Paul Renne, an attorney for the plaintiffs, acknowledged the Supreme Court's
very acceptance of the case might not bode well for his clients.

"The common wisdom usually is they take cases where they're dissatisfied
with the result (so far)," he said. "I hope that isn't the reason."

Oakland Housing Authority attorney Gary T. Lafayette said he hopes that's
the reason exactly.

"We hope this means they're going to...give this policy to housing
authorities so they can properly address criminal conduct that takes place
in public housing, and ensure residents are provided with safe and decent
housing," Lafayette said.

At issue is the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development's "one
strike" policy, holding tenants responsible for their visitors' drug
activity on or near public property.

The plaintiffs include:

Pearlie Rucker, 66, who lived with her daughter, her two grandchildren and
her great-grandchild. Her son was found with cocaine three blocks from the
apartment.

Willie Lee, 74, and Barbara Hill, 66, each of whom lived with a grandson who
had marijuana in a public housing parking lot.

And Herman Walker, 78, who is disabled. His home health care worker brought
crack cocaine into his house.

The housing authority moved to evict each tenant, and the tenants sued to
keep their homes. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit appellate court
upheld the eviction policy in February 2000, but that ruling was withdrawn
six months later when the court voted to rehear the case with an 11-judge
panel. That larger panel ruled in the plaintiffs' favor in January.

The plaintiffs remain in their homes, the eviction proceedings against them
stayed until this case is resolved once and for all.

The 9th Circuit's decision in January was 7-4, with dissenters suggesting
the appellate court -- often accused of judicial activism and often reversed
by the U.S. Supreme Court -- had once again gone too far.

The majority's opinion relied on a 1990 Senate report, which mentioned an
expectation that each case under this law would be judged individually and
wisely by housing authorities and the courts. "For example, eviction would
not be the appropriate course if the tenant had no knowledge of the criminal
activities of his/her guests or had taken reasonable steps under the
circumstances to prevent the activity," the report read.

The appellate court's majority cited this, as well as case law saying it
can't assume Congress intended an "odd or absurd result" such as evicting
someone for something they knew nothing about.

But the dissenters complained the majority should have either found a way to
declare the law unconstitutional, or left it alone. By basically rewriting
legislation and ignoring executive agencies' judgment, the court overstepped
its constitutional limits, the dissenters argued.

Catherine M. Bishop, an attorney with the National Housing Law Project in
Oakland, said she's concerned the Supreme Court is taking this case -- and
the government will argue it -- in a time when the nation's mood might be
swinging toward sacrificing some civil rights in return for feeling safe and
secure.

But Renne said he doubts the nation's post-terrorism fears will sway the
court in this case: "The issue here isn't one that goes to national security
- -- it goes to fundamental fairnesses of whether someone in public housing
can be evicted without them having any control over the events causing the
eviction, or even any knowledge of those events."