DRUG-RELATED EVICTIONS OK'D

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday 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 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. Tuesday's high court ruling overturning
the 9th Circuit can be read on the Supreme Court's web site:
www.supremecourtus.gov.

Justice Stephen 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 like those of the four tenants
involved in Tuesday'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.

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.