SUPREME COURT EMBRACES HARD LINE ON DRUGS IN FEDERAL HOUSING

The Supreme Court reinforced a hard line against drugs Tuesday, backing
rules that permit eviction of families from federally subsidized housing if
any family member or guest is involved in narcotics.

The decision came a week after justices indicated they were ready to allow
wider drug-testing in schools, and they are also handling narcotics cases
this year that could condone government intrusion for public safety.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, quoting Congress, wrote in the housing
decision that "with drugs leading to murders, muggings, and other forms of
violence against tenants," aggressive eviction policies are reasonable. He
also cited Congress' desire to end "the reign of terror" in public housing.

The court said that public housing directors could evict entire families
for drug use by one member, regardless of whether the use was on public
housing property or if anyone else knew about it.

The losers were four Oakland, Calif., senior citizens who received eviction
notices because of the drug use of relatives or caregivers.

Critics of the law said there is a double standard for the poor who depend
on public housing.

The issue of substance abuse has touched the White House. President Bush's
underage daughters were caught drinking in a Texas restaurant last year and
his niece, the daughter of Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, was admitted to a drug
treatment center in February after being arrested on a prescription drug
charge.

Two more drug cases will be argued before the court next month, both at the
request of the Bush administration. One could make it easier to search
public transportation passengers who may be drug couriers, the other may
affirm the way sentences are figured in drug cases.

"This war on drugs is being waged most viciously against the poor people,"
said Daniel Abrahamson, director of legal affairs for the group Drug Policy
Alliance. "Any time the Supreme Court takes a case with drugs in it, it is
another opportunity to further erode our civil liberties and constitutional
rights."

Jonathan Macey, a professor at Cornell University Law School, said the
court's decisions "give legitimacy to the war on drugs." Regardless of the
impact, it's "symbolic and morale boosting" when the court affirms the
government's drug tools, he said.

Justices have resolved two search and seizure cases this term in favor of
government. In one, the court ruled that an officer had enough suspicion to
make a traffic stop when he saw a family acting strangely in a minivan near
the Mexico border. The officer found 125 pounds of marijuana.

The so-called "one-strike" housing provision at issue in Tuesday's decision
was part of a drug law Congress passed in 1988 amid complaints about crime
in public housing. The legal challenge centered on policies developed to
follow the law.

The ruling is a relief for housing leaders, who argued that without
eviction power drug problems would worsen in public housing.

"It is not absurd that a local housing authority may sometimes evict a
tenant who had no knowledge of drug-related activity," Rehnquist wrote for
the 8-0 court.

The residents in this case were from Oakland, but public housing groups
nationwide have followed the case.

Paris R. Baldacci, a professor at Cardozo School of Law, said the Supreme
Court seemed swayed by crime concerns, not fear of hurting innocent tenants.

"It's that tone, that the court is so caught up in the sort of drug panic
that it doesn't step back ... instead of getting the target who might be
causing the reign of terror, this is sweeping up all people who may have a
drug problem," Baldacci said.

Justice Stephen Breyer did not take part in the housing ruling.

The cases are Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker,
00-1770, and Oakland Housing Authority v. Rucker, 00-1781.