JUSTICES RULE DRUG-EVICTION LAW IS FAIR

WASHINGTON, March 26 - The Supreme Court today interpreted a federal drug
law to permit the eviction of public housing tenants for drug use by any
household member or guest, even drug use that takes place outside the
apartment without the tenant's knowledge.

The 8-to-0 decision overturned a ruling by the federal appeals court in San
Francisco, which had interpreted the provision of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
of 1988 to bar the eviction of "innocent" tenants who had neither knowledge
of nor control over their family members' drug use.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said its
interpretation was necessary to avoid the serious constitutional question
that would be raised by depriving tenants of their property without proof
of individual wrongdoing.

But the law raised no constitutional issue and its terms were clear, Chief
Justice William H. Rehnquist said for the court today in a 10-page opinion.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer did not take part in the case because his
brother, Judge Charles R. Breyer of Federal District Court in San
Francisco, was the judge who granted an injunction in 1998 to stop the
Oakland Housing Authority from evicting four tenants who challenged the
provision the authority had included in their leases to comply with the
federal law.

There was nothing unusual, let alone unconstitutional, about "no-fault
evictions" of tenants who failed to meet a condition of their lease, Chief
Justice Rehnquist said. In signing the leases, the tenants agreed to make
sure that no "drug-related criminal activity" would take place "on or near
the premises" and agreed that they faced eviction if the lease was violated.

Civil rights organizations had filed briefs in the case, Department of
Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker, No. 00-1770, to argue that the
policy was unfair and would lead to increased homelessness. That no member
of the court either agreed with or felt moved to acknowledge these
arguments was a measure of the current court's relative conservatism.

A brief filed by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law
School, on behalf of a coalition of civil rights and tenants' rights
groups, described evictions undertaken by housing authorities around the
country that it characterized as "horror stories" of "draconian
enforcement." The brief said "a tenant who has a fleeting connection to the
alleged perpetrator of a crime is put at risk because of conduct that only
the most paranoid or clairvoyant tenant could possibly have foreseen."

The four plaintiffs who challenged the evictions in Oakland included two
whose grandchildren, who lived with them, were caught smoking marijuana in
a housing project parking lot; one whose daughter was found with cocaine
three blocks from the apartment; and a disabled 75-year-old man whose
caretaker was found with cocaine in his apartment.

Chief Justice Rehnquist said that Congress's intention to give public
housing authorities the right to evict "innocent owners" like these was
unambiguous, as shown by the statute's reference to "any drug-related
criminal activity." He said, "This any drug-related activity engaged in by
the specified persons is grounds for termination, not just drug-related
activity that the tenant knew, or should have known, about."

The chief justice said the policy was a reasonable one, given that drug use
presented a threat to other residents of a public housing project,
regardless of whether the responsible tenant knew about it.

The New York City Housing Authority, the country's biggest local housing
agency, said today that the court's decision would strengthen its policy,
which it described as "zero tolerance for drugs and violent criminal activity."

Gerri Lamb, a tenant leader who heads the New York City Housing Authority
Council of Residents Presidents, said that in practice, the authority often
allowed a family to remain if the offending relative was excluded from the
residence.

But Corinne Carey, a New York lawyer who represents families fighting drug
evictions from public housing, said the authority's approach resulted in
breaking up families and undermining an addicted family member's chances
for recovery.

"Stable housing is the key component for anyone struggling with addiction,"
Ms. Carey said.

Dan Abrahamson, director of legal affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance,
which filed a brief in the case, said that the policy and the court's
interpretation of it reflected "the criminal justice approach to drugs that
has failed us for 20 years."

Linda Greenhouse, winner of the Pulitzer Prize for beat reporting, answers
readers' questions on Supreme Court rules and procedure in this column,
available exclusively on NYTimes.com. Email Ms. Greenhouse a question at
scotuswb@nytimes.com with "Supreme Court Q&A" in the subject line and your
name and town in the message. Questions will be answered only in the column
and only when they are of general interest.