COURT OKS HARD LINE ON DRUG-USE EVICTIONS

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that local housing
authorities can evict tenants when household members or guests use drugs,
holding that a federal zero-tolerance drug policy in public housing is a
reasonable approach to protecting residents from "a reign of terror" by
drug dealers.

Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice William Rehnquist said federal
law unambiguously gives local public housing authorities the discretion to
evict such tenants, even if the tenants did not know about the drug use.

Four elderly tenants from California had challenged their evictions,
arguing that the actions were unconstitutional and not authorized by
federal law. But the court said Congress clearly intended for the law to
sweep broadly, authorizing evictions even if the tenants were not directly
at fault or did not know about the drug use.

"There is an obvious reason why Congress would have permitted local public
housing authorities to conduct no-fault evictions," the court said. "A
tenant who cannot control drug crime ... is a threat to other residents and
the project."

Quoting from the federal law, the court said it was reasonable for Congress
to permit those evictions in order to "provide public and other federally
assisted low-income housing that is decent, safe, and free from illegal drugs."

The decision was short in length and emphatic in tone. Coming just a month
after the case was argued, it emphasized that Congress had the authority to
take a hard line in order to make public housing safer for all tenants.

Civil liberties groups took issue Tuesday with whether the law had that
effect. They said that allowing evictions because of drug use by any
household member or guest under the tenant's control put an unreasonable
burden on poor parents and grandparents.

"Homelessness is a cruel price to pay for a crime you had nothing to do
with," said Dan Abrahamson, director of legal affairs for the Drug Policy
Alliance, a leading drug policy reform organization.

Relatives, Caregiver Had Drugs

The case came about in 1997, when the Oakland Housing Authority started
eviction proceedings against the elderly tenants after their relatives or,
in one case, a caregiver, were caught with drugs.

The housing authority alleged that the grandsons of William Lee and Barbara
Hill had been caught smoking marijuana in the apartment's parking lot. Lee,
then 71, had lived in public housing more than 25 years, and Hill, then 63,
had lived in public housing more than 30 years.

The authority also sought to evict Pearlie Rucker, 63, after her mentally
disabled daughter was found with cocaine three blocks from their apartment.
It also moved to evict Herman Walker, a 75-year-old disabled man whose
caregiver was found in the apartment with cocaine for a third time.

In their lawsuit seeking to block the evictions, the tenants maintained
they did not know about the drug use and had tried to keep their apartments
drug-free. They argued that the law did not authorize the evictions unless
the tenants knew or should have known a member of their household was
engaging in drug-related activity.

A California-based federal appeals court sided with the tenants, ruling
that Congress did not intend to permit the eviction of innocent tenants and
that a contrary interpretation of the law would lead to absurd results.

But the Supreme Court said it was evident from the words of the federal law
that Congress intended for such evictions to occur.

"The statute does not require the eviction of any tenant who violated the
lease provision," the court held. "Instead, it entrusts that decision to
the local public housing authorities," who can assess the seriousness of
the offense and the tenant's efforts to prevent the drug use, the court said.

Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate in the decision because his
brother, a federal district court judge, ruled on the case in the trial
court. The brother sided with the tenants.

Candidate Speech Case

Also on Tuesday, the court took up an important 1st Amendment case on
whether states could ban judicial candidates from announcing their views on
"disputed legal or political issues." The case will affect judicial
campaigns in the 38 states in which voters elect judges, including Illinois.

In arguments Tuesday, an attorney for a Minnesota judicial candidate argued
that the state had no compelling reason for the restrictions on speech and
that voters were entitled to the information.

"When a candidate's speech is severely restricted, people are denied access
to the information they need to make an informed choice," lawyer James Bopp
argued on behalf of former candidate Gregory Wersal.

At issue is a provision of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct, which
limits the discussion of "disputed legal or political issues." Wersal, a
candidate for the state Supreme Court, challenged the provision as an
unconstitutional restriction on his free-speech rights.

Wersal lost in the lower courts, but the justices indicated Tuesday that
they sympathized with his arguments. Several were obviously troubled that
states, after providing for the election of judges, then were depriving
voters of necessary information.

"I'm befuddled that Minnesota wants its judges elected ... then it enacts a
state provision intended to prevent the electorate from knowing even by
implication how a candidate would behave on the bench," said Justice
Antonin Scalia.

Alan Gilbert, who defended the state regulation, maintained that it
restricted speech only on specific issues that would come before the court.
He said candidates were free to discuss such things as their judicial
philosophy and how they would interpret the Constitution.

"That's so fuzzy it doesn't mean anything," Scalia interrupted. "It's
nothing but fluff. Can they say anything that has any meaning?"

Gilbert argued that candidates were free to talk about past cases but that
they could not say they would seek to overturn a particular ruling.

"So a candidate can say, 'This is the worst decision since Dred Scott, a
plague on our system ... but I'm not telling you how I'll vote?'" asked
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who seemed particularly skeptical of Gilbert's
arguments.

"What the state is trying to do," Gilbert said later, "is protect the
integrity of the judiciary."

But many of the justices appeared to view the issue from the voter's
perspective. Kennedy, for example, told Gilbert, "So you don't trust the
electorate to decide?"

Added Scalia: "I find it hard to believe it's a significant interest of the
state of Minnesota to prevent the electorate from being informed."