HIGH COURT STANDS BY DRUG EVICTIONS

WASHINGTON -- 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. Rick Parker, executive
director for the Athens Housing Authority, which manages the local public
housing communities, said Tuesday the authority rarely has to enforce its
eviction policy since it makes clear to tenants the rules regarding drug
use before they sign a housing contract.

''We don't have a whole lot of drug-related evictions during the course of
the year,'' Parker said. ''Strong tools are part of how you deal with the
problem and when strong tools exist they serve as a deterrent.''

The losers in the Supreme Court case were four California 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 trying to buy alcohol 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. ''Anytime 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.

''It's not fair. It's not right,'' said 79-year-old Herman Walker, one of
the four senior citizens who could be evicted now.

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, Calif., 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.