HIGH COURT RULES THAT GOVERNMENT CAN USE EVICTIONS TO COMBAT DRUGS

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled that public-housing tenants can be
evicted if any household member or guest engages in illegal drug activities
- even if the tenant didn't know about it.

The ruling backed the 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which Congress passed amid
rising crime rates in public housing. The law requires public-housing
agencies to use leases that, among other things, allow for eviction if the
tenant, a member of the tenant's household or a guest engages in a
drug-related crime.

Writing for the court in its 8-0 decision, Chief Justice William Rehnquist
said, "The government is not attempting to criminally punish or civilly
regulate respondents [the tenants] as members of the general populace. It
is instead acting as a landlord of property that it owns, invoking a clause
in a lease" that tenants have signed. Justice Stephen Breyer didn't take
part in the case.

The case involves four public-housing tenants of the Oakland Housing
Authority who were subject to eviction in late 1997 and 1998 because their
relatives or, in one instance a caregiver, were found with illegal
substances on the property.

The tenants challenged the law in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, which enjoined the housing authority from ending
their leases. The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco affirmed the lower
court ruling.

The high court said the federal law "unambiguously requires" leases that
give housing authorities discretion to evict tenants for drug-related
activities by members of the tenant's households or guests, "whether or not
the tenant knew, or should have known, about the activity." (HUD v. Rucker)

Separately, the justices reacted skeptically to a Minnesota ethics rule
that bars judicial candidates from speaking out on political and legal
issues. During oral arguments on the case Tuesday, Justice Antonin Scalia
said: "I'm befuddled by the fact that Minnesota wants its judges elected
... and then prevents the electorate from knowing how the candidates are
going to behave once they're on the bench."

Chief Justice Rehnquist said, "That doesn't make any sense at all." He was
reflecting doubts also expressed by Justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony
M. Kennedy.

Minnesota Solicitor General Alan I. Gilbert defended the rule, saying it is
designed to "protect the integrity of the judiciary" by shielding judges
from committing themselves on issues that may come before their court. The
justices are expected to decide the case by June. (Republican Party of
Minnesota v. Kelly)