SINS OF THE FEW

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to permit the eviction of families from
public housing, even if only one member, unknown to others, commits a
criminal drug offense, is draconian and unfair. Local public housing
officials say they won't use the law to just toss innocent people from
their homes, and we hope that's truly the case.

As the nation wages its so-called "war on drugs," the Supreme Court opinion
only further victimizes innocent public housing residents. The decision
means that a tenant can be tossed out even if he or she knew nothing of a
family member's involvement in drugs on or off public housing property.
That 's far too sweeping.

The court overturned a decision from a federal district court in San
Francisco that said the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 doesn't apply to
offenses committed outside an apartment without the tenant's knowledge.
That finding was upheld by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but the
Supreme Court overturned it, 8-0. Justice Stephen Breyer didn't vote
because his brother, Judge Charles Breyer of zthe district court, granted
the injunction four years ago to keep the Oakland Housing Authority from
evicting tenants who took exception to the federal law. One was a
63-year-old woman who lived with younger family members and who tried to be
vigilant about keeping the home drug free.

Illegal drug use should not be tolerated, and people who commit drug crimes
must be punished. There's been some progress toward making life for public
housing residents more livable, and that includes the 1994
one-strike-and-you're-out policy designed to evict only the drug dealers
and gang members from public housing.

Yet it's hard to understand how basic justice is served when entire
families can be unceremoniously evicted because of the sins of one member.
Yes, families should be aware of members' behavior and deal with criminal
activity. But Congress' 1988 law in effect expects families in public
housing to do a better job of self-policing than families in other
neighborhoods.

In his opinion, Chief Justice William Rehnquist quoted from regulations
that made the anti-drug abuse law effective. He wrote, "Regardless of
knowledge, a tenant who 'cannot control drug crime, or other criminal
activities by a household member which threaten health or safety of other
residents is a threat to other residents and the project.'" How would
middle- and upper-income families respond if such a law applied to them?
Should we evict upscale renters whose teenagers abuse alcohol? After all,
it is the most commonly abused drug.

The Lucas County Metropolitan Housing Authority says it will use common
sense when such cases arise. That's encouraging, but the high court has
given such agencies a dangerously powerful weapon.