MOCKING JUSTICE

The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday made a mockery of justice.
The high court voted 8-0 that it is legal to evict a tenant in a
public housing project if any member of the tenant's family, a guest
or any other associate is involved in criminal drug use, whether or
not the tenant knows of that drug use.

By its action, the Supreme Court trampled the concepts of fairness
and reasonableness, at least as they apply to families too poor to
live anywhere but in federally-subsidized housing projects.

The case involved the Oakland, Calif. housing authority and four
long- time tenants, who challenged their eviction notices on grounds
that they either did not know of a family member's drug use or had no
way to control it. According to the New York Times report, "The four
plaintiffs included two whose grandchildren, who lived with them,
were caught smoking marijuana in a housing project parking lot; one
whose daughter was found with cocaine three blocks from the
apartment; and a disabled 75-year-old man whose caretaker was found
with cocaine in his apartment.a"

The housing project evicted the tenants on grounds that they had
violated their lease agreements. The lease agreements include the
punitive provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. That law was
an attempt to address the fact that housing projects had deteriorated
into dangerous ghettos where criminal drug activity was rampant.

No one disputes the fact that drug addicts, dealers and their
associated thugs are a menace to everyone else living in a housing
project. Does anyone truly believe the remedy to that problem is the
eviction of the elderly and disabled? Does anyone believe that the
elderly, the disabled, and anyone else forced by their circumstances
to living in public housing would not like the same feeling of peace
and security that those in private housing enjoy?

Back in 1988 Congress undoubtedly thought so, but since hardly anyone
in Congress, then or now, has any direct experience with living in
subsidized housing surrounded by crack addicts, the remedy Congress
adopted was both harsh and absurd. The law it adopted in effect said
that if you live in public housing, you must be clairvoyant, know
what you cannot know, see what you cannot see and suffer eviction if
you do not. If an elderly person is in his or her apartment watching
TV and a grandchild is a block away smoking marijuana, grandma had
better start packing even though she has no idea what is going on
beyond her door.

While the law doesn't require eviction, Justice William H. Rehnquist
said, it delegates that decision to local housing authorities "who
are in the best position to take account of, among other things, the
degree to which the housing project suffers from rampant drug-related
or violent crime."a

This is a Draconian law and the Supreme Court ought to have
acknowledged as much. In its ideal state, justice embodies the
concepts of personal responsibility and fairness. In this case both
are denied a class of people primarily because of their economic
situation. The court does not address this hypocrisy but the contrast
is easy enough to see. If your neighbor has adolescent kids who are
involved with drug use and who may be placing other neighbors at
risk, your neighbor will not lose his or her home. The Anti-Drug
Abuse Act does not target him. Not so for poor people living in
public housing. Despite all the lofty speeches to the contrary, the
Supreme Court decision says in effect that people of slender means
also have slender rights.

The Supreme Court ruling is offensive, but only Congress can rewrite
the law. It should not hesitate to do so.