Facebook Twitter Email
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 2002

The federal government can evict a group of elderly residents from a public housing project because family members or guests were found in possession of drugs, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.

In a unanimous 8-0 decision, the Court upheld a tough anti-drug policy implemented by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Former President Bill Clinton in 1996 touted the "One Strike and You're Out" initiative as a means of ridding public housing of the scourge of substance abuse.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist agreed that the strict measures were necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of public housing from a "reign of terror." Reversing an appeals court decision, he said that leases signed by tenants clearly state a no tolerance policy.

"[A]ny drug-related activity engaged in by the specified persons is grounds for termination," he wrote, "not just drug-related activity that the tenant knew, or should have known, about."

The ruling resolves a dispute over how far the government can go to enforce the one-strike rule. In the case at hand, HUD moved to remove four elderly residents, all over the age of 63, who claimed no knowledge or control of drug activities of family members or guests.

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

Willie Lee, 71, and Barbara Hill, 63, were subject to eviction because their grandsons were found smoking marijuana in their apartment's parking lot. The Supreme Court rejected the notion they were "innocent tenants" whose removal was unfair under the law which authorized the tough policy.

Herman Walker, 73, is disabled and said he had no control over the actions of his caregiver and two guests, who were found with cocaine. Rehnquist expressed no sympathy with the situation, writing that HUD is merely "acting as a landlord" by trying to boot him from his home.

Anti-drug measures were first authorized by Congress in the mid-1990s and strengthened by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. The residents claimed the provisions were unconstitutional, an argument rejected yesterday.

During his term, Clinton expanded stiffer penalties for the nation's public housing developments and low-income homes, which serve more than 3 million Americans, according to HUD.

Justice Stephen Breyer was not involved in the case because his brother, a federal judge in California, took part in previous proceedings. The residents are from Oakland.

Get the Case HUD v. Rucker
Syllabus | Opinion

Related Decisions:
RUCKER v. DAVIS, No 98-16322 (9th Cir. January 24, 2001)

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

Related Stories:
Supreme Court accepts 'one strike' case (9/26)