PUBLIC HOUSING DRUG EVICTION POLICY UPHELD

WASHINGTON - Upholding the federal government's "one strike and you're out"
drug policy for low-income housing projects, the Supreme Court ruled
Tuesday that a public housing tenant may be evicted if any family member or
guest is caught using illegal drugs - even if the tenant was unaware of the
drug use.

The case originated in 1998 with a federal lawsuit by four evicted public
housing tenants from Oakland, Calif., including Pearlie Rucker, 63, a
great-grandmother whose mentally disabled daughter was arrested for crack
cocaine possession near their apartment complex.

Rucker and the other former tenants said that the "one strike and you're
out" law, passed by Congress and signed by President Reagan in 1988,
couldn't have been intended to punish unwitting individuals. A federal
appeals court agreed with the tenants last year.

But in a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the
Supreme Court held that Congress had spoken "unambiguously" when it
authorized the policy.

"There is an obvious reason why Congress would have permitted local public
housing authorities to conduct no-fault evictions," Rehnquist wrote,
quoting the language of federal regulations implementing the law.
"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.' "

Noting that Congress had found a drug dealer-imposed "reign of terror" in
public housing, the court seemed to view the case as a straightforward
landlord-tenant matter in which tenants had signed a lease promising that
no one in their apartments would use drugs - period.

Such evictions are "common" under normal landlord-tenant law, Rehnquist's
opinion observed.

"One strike and you're out" enjoyed bipartisan support as part of the same
movement toward "tough love" social policy that produced the 1995 welfare
reform bill.

In March 1996, President Clinton ordered the Department of Housing and
Urban Development to encourage stiffer enforcement of the policy by the
nation's 3,200 public housing authorities. It applies both to 1.2 million
families in public housing and to those who receive HUD subsidies to rent
private apartments, a HUD official said Tuesday.

HUD's Web site bills "one strike and you're out" as "the toughest
admissions and eviction policy that HUD has implemented."

HUD issued a statement Tuesday calling the court's ruling "a great victory
for families in public housing who want to be free from those who
infiltrate their community with drugs or commit violent crimes."

Gary Lafayette, an attorney who represented the Oakland Housing Authority
in the case, said the court's decision recognized that, harsh as the
penalty imposed on evicted residents might seem, other poor people would
pay the price if authorities are denied all the power they need to keep the
projects drug-free.

Lafayette noted that the Oakland Housing Authority faced a lawsuit in the
past from public housing tenants claiming that it had failed to be tough
enough on drugs.

There are no precise statistics as to how many people have been evicted
under the policy, but it has been criticized as draconian and unfair by
advocates for low-income residents. Opponents of the policy said officials
should take into account whether people are clearly not to blame.

In fact, Oakland officials eventually permitted Pearlie Rucker to remain in
her apartment once her daughter had been removed.

The vote in the case was 8-0. Justice Stephen Breyer didn't take part in
the case.