Facebook Twitter Email
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2001

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to review a tough "one strike" policy implemented during the Clinton administration that a lower court said cannot be used to evict entire families whose members or guests have been convicted of drug or criminal activities.

A group of elderly residents -- all over the age of 63 -- do not have to leave their homes in Oakland, California, even though relatives or third-party housemates were found to possess cocaine and other illicit substances, a split panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January. Congress never intended to kick out innocent tenants when lawmakers sought to rid public housing of the scourge of drugs, the judges said in a 7-4 decision.

"Imposing the threat of eviction on an innocent tenant who has already taken all reasonable steps to prevent third-party drug activity," will not help reduce criminal behavior, wrote Judge Michael Daly Hawkins for the majority.

"Likewise, evicting the innocent tenant will not significantly reduce drug-related criminal activity in public housing, since the tenant has not engaged in any such activity personally or knowingly allowed such activity to occur," he continued.

At the very least, the 9th Circuit decision would discourage the type of evictions the Department of Housing and Urban Development sought under a "One Strike and You're Out" policy announced in 1996 by President Clinton. Clinton touted the initiative as a means of fighting alcohol and drug abuse while protecting the safety of housing residents.

But at the most extreme, the ruling would shut down HUD's ability to remove certain tenants altogether. By challenging their evictions, the four California residents have called into question under what circumstances HUD may remove a tenant.

In the case of 63-year-old grandmother Pearlie Rucker, her mentally retarded daughter was found with cocaine three blocks from their public housing apartment. By an argument HUD presented in court, even if the daughter was found 3,000 miles away with drugs, Rucker could be evicted.

A similar situation came upon Willie Lee, 71, and Barbara Hill, 63, who claimed no knowledge of their grandsons' drug use. The grandsons were found smoking marijuana in their apartment's parking lot but the court said Lee and Hill could be "innocent tenants" unfairly evicted under HUD's existing policy.

The fourth potential evictee, 73-year-old Herman Walker, posed a slightly different case. Drug activity occurred in his home, of which he was aware, but he challenged his eviction because he is disabled and his hired in-home caregiver was found with cocaine.

To a set of dissenting judges, HUD's policy was deemed necessary for the government to be a "prudent landlord." By accepting the case, the Supreme Court would be considering their support of the Clinton initiative.

"It is obvious that when Congress authorized the eviction of innocent tenants, the potential for individual unfairness existed," wrote Judge Joseph T. Sneed for the dissent.

Congress in 1988 passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which authorized public housing authorities to require tenants sign anti-drug activity leases. Congress later changed the act to authorize leases to prohibit drug activity "on or off" public housing premises.

The Supreme Court will hear the case during its upcoming October 2001 term. The Bush administration sought the appeal and supports the tough policy.

Justice Steven Breyer, whose brother is a federal judge in California, will not be participating in the case.

Get the Case:
RUCKER v. DAVIS, No 98-16322 (9th Cir. January 24, 2001)

Relevant Links:
One Strike Initiative - http://www.hud.gov/progdesc/1strike.cfm