HIGH COURT UPHOLDS NO-DRUG POLICY

WASHINGTON-- The Supreme Court yesterday upheld public housing
agencies' "zero tolerance" policy on illegal drug use, ruling that a
tenant can be evicted if a family member or guest uses drugs -- even
if the tenant did not know about it.

The court ruled, 8-0, that the housing authority in Oakland, Calif.,
was within its rights in moving to evict four longtime tenants whose
relatives had used drugs, even if the tenants themselves could be
called "innocent."

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for the court, found that
federal law is unambiguous in giving housing agencies the discretion
to evict tenants for the drug activities of relatives and guests
"whether or not the tenant knew, or should have known, about the activity."

The ruling in Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker,
No. 00-1770, and Oakland Housing Authority v. Rucker, 00-1781, had
been awaited by housing agencies and advocacy groups across the country.

The case at hand, like similar ones that have inspired lawsuits
elsewhere, is fraught with wrenching emotional and social issues, but
Rehnquist and his colleagues said the law and the intent of lawmakers
was clear.

"The statute does not require the eviction of any tenant who violated
the lease provision," Rehnquist wrote. "Instead, it entrusts that
decision to the local public 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 ...' "

Eviction of tenants who were not personally at fault is a normal part
of landlord-tenant law, the ruling stated. And, citing Congress'
intent regarding illegal drugs and the crime it spawns, Rehnquist
declared: "Regardless of knowledge, a tenant who 'cannot control drug
crime, or other criminal activities by a household member which
threaten health or safety of residents, is a threat to other residents
and the project.' "

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer had issued an injunction barring
the eviction of the tenants, and his stance was upheld by the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, in San Francisco. Yesterday's high court
ruling overturning the 9th Circuit can be read on the Supreme Court's
Web site: www.supremecourtus.gov.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer took no part in the case because Judge
Charles Breyer is his brother.

The case was argued before the high court last month, and some
justices seemed sympathetic to the plight of the tenants. Pearlie
Rucker, 63, had been living in public housing since 1985 when she was
informed she would be evicted. She lived with her mentally disabled
daughter, two grandchildren and a great-granddaughter. The housing
authority said Rucker's daughter was found with cocaine and a crack
pipe three blocks from her apartment.

Willie Lee, 71, who has lived in public housing for more than 25
years, received notice of eviction after allegations that her grandson
was caught smoking marijuana in the project's parking lot. The
grandson of another tenant, Barbara Hill, 63, who has lived in public
housing for more than 30 years, admitted smoking marijuana in the
parking lot.

Herman Walker, who is 75 and disabled, had lived in public housing for
10 years when eviction proceedings began after his caregiver and two
others were accused of having cocaine in his apartment. (Rehnquist
noted that the housing authority had issued two warnings to Walker
before moving to evict him.)

The zero-tolerance policy was part of legislation passed by Congress
in 1988, in response to drug use and the accompanying crime that have
made many public housing complexes increasingly dangerous places.

Critics of the law have cited examples such as those of the four
tenants involved in yesterday's decision in arguing that the law is
too harsh. "The only way they can get away with it is because it
affects poor people," Sheila Crowley, head of the National Low Income
Housing Coalition, told The Associated Press.

But many poor people in crime-ridden housing projects have sided with
the authorities who follow tough eviction policies. Tenants' groups in
New York City, for instance, have sometimes pushed for zero-tolerance
policies, in the process arguing against other advocates for the poor.