HUD v. Rucker, Pearlie, et al. / Oakland Housing Authority, et al. v. Rucker

Questions presented: Is the lease clause provided for in the 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, at 42 U.S.C. @ 1437d(l)(6), violated by drug-related criminal activity, regardless of whether it can be shown that the tenant knew, or had reason to know, of the drug activity? The clause states that a public housing lease must contain a clause stating that "any drug-related criminal activity on or off [the] premises engaged in by a public housing tenant, any member of the tenant's household, or any guest or other person under the tenant's control, shall be cause for termination of tenancy."

BY LINDA LOU, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

The price public housing tenants can pay for their family or guests drug use and possession is homelessness.

Gelinda Rucker was three blocks away from home when police stopped her for being drunk in public on March 9, 1997. She also possessed cocaine and a crack cocaine pipe. Rucker, mentally disabled since birth, told police she lived with her mother, Pearlie, 63, in East Oakland public housing.

About five months later, police found rock cocaine chips and four metal crack cocaine pipes in Herman Walkers public housing apartment during a security check. These items belong to his caretaker, Eleanor Randle. A former preacher, Walker, 75, is disabled and requires the assistance of an in-home caretaker.

Police returned to Walkers place, located near the center of Oakland and a few miles away from Ruckers home, two more times. They found a rock cocaine pipe the first time; a few months later, police discovered a glass cocaine pipe. Walker fired Randle after the third police encounter. He also received an eviction order.

In November, housing officials called police to report drug use and loitering on public housing property located about two miles northwest of Walkers apartment. As police approached the propertys parking lot, Robert Lee threw away a marijuana cigarette. Lee admitted to smoking marijuana and was also cited for marijuana possession. Donte McPherson, who was with Lee at the time, also admitted to smoking marijuana. Both lived with their senior grandparents, Willie Lee, 71, and Barbara Hill, 63, in the apartment building.

Oakland Housing Authority filed complaints against the four tenants in late 1997 and early 1998 for violating a lease provision that said no family members or guests would participate in drug-related criminal activity on or near their complexes. Officials wanted termination of their leases.

In 1988, Congress created the Anti-Drug Abuse Act to curb drug-related crime in public housing projects and to protect tenants. The act forbids "any member of the tenants household, or a guest or other person under the tenants control" from engaging in drug-related criminal activity on or near public housing. The consequence of "such criminal activity shall be cause for termination of tenancy." Conviction of the crime is not needed for eviction.

In 1996, Congress changed the act by replacing "on or near such premises" with "on or off such premises."

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and local housing authorities enforce the statute. HUDs interpretation of the statute is any person under the tenants control who commits a drug-related crime will cost the tenants lease, regardless of the tenants personal involvement or knowledge of the criminal activity.

Initially, HUD gave local public housing authorities the discretion to evict. But in 1996, former president Bill Clinton announced the "One Strike and You're Out" policy to reduce crime in public housing. This policy encourages evictions despite individual circumstances, and also matches the distribution of federal funding to increased drug-related evictions. In 1996, the Oakland Housing Authority received an $824,961 drug-elimination grant.

Each one of these Oakland tenants said they had no knowledge of drug activity by those who lived with them, and had told them that drug use was not permitted.

The four tenants sought preliminary injunctive relief against eviction, arguing that innocent tenants should not be evicted. They added that it would be unconstitutional to evict innocent tenants. Walker and Rucker also cited the Americans with Disabilities Act that makes "reasonable accommodations" to people with disabilities.

The preliminary injunction was granted by a district court in June of 1998, after finding that "the balance of hardships tipped decisively in tenants favors." The district court preliminarily prohibited the eviction of any public housing tenant for "drug-related criminal activity that does not occur within the tenant's apartment unit when the tenant did not know of, or have reason to know of, the drug-related criminal activity."

In February of 2000, a divided 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel voted 2-1 to reverse. Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote for the majority that drugs are a major problem in public housing and Congress act prevents "tenants from turning a blind eye to the conduct of a household member or guest." O'Scannlain also wrote that it is reasonable for public housing tenants to be held accountable for the activities of their household members and guests because leases for privately-owned housing often do. "Tenants, quite simply, are not being evicted because of their association with drug users. Instead, [Oakland Housing Authority] is terminating their tenancy because of their failure to comply with a lease provision by which they agreed to abide," O'Scannlain wrote.

In dissent, Judge William Fletcher wrote that it would be unfair to evict families if a curious household member tried drugs. "If families were permitted to remain in their private homes only on condition that no family member had ever used or possessed illegal drugs in or near the home, many American families would be made homeless," Fletcher wrote. Fletcher also wrote "the statute is silent as to when the drug-related criminal activity must occur," and would enable eviction even if it happened five years ago without the tenants knowledge. He also wrote that he believes the eviction of innocent tenants would violate the due process clause.

On Jan. 24, 2001, the full 9th Circuit, hearing the case en banc, sided with the district court. The 9th Circuit was split, with seven judges in the majority and four judges dissenting. "Today we examine the statutory basis behind HUDs "One Strike and You're Out" policy, and hold that Congress did not intend to authorize the eviction of innocent tenants," wrote Judge Michael Hawkins.

"The statutory provision does not expressly address the level of personal knowledge or fault that is required for eviction, or even make it clear who can be evicted," Hawkins wrote. "Although the statute permits termination of tenancy, it does not answer the question of whose tenancy." Hawkins also wrote that evicting the tenant would not "significantly reduce drug-related criminal activity" because the tenant was not involved.

In addition, Hawkins found it absurd that if a tenants child engaged in drug activity "3,000 miles away," or if a household member had been convicted of a drug crime years earlier, an entire family could be made homeless.

In dissent, Judge Joseph Sneed wrote that Congress gave HUD "a new tool in the struggle to provide decent and safe low-income housing." He wrote that it would be "impractical" to require proof that the tenant knew about a guests criminal activity. "Proper authorities would seldom, if ever, discover the tenant seated with the drug using guest or while the latter engaged in other drug-related criminal acts," Sneed wrote. Sneed also wrote that "culpable" tenants would be able to "threaten potential witnesses" because of lengthy public housing eviction procedures.

All the tenants, who each have lived in public housing for more than 10 years, still reside in the same apartment complexes since their battles with public housing officials began.

On Sept. 25, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the HUD case. Six days later, the Court granted certiorari in the Oakland Housing Authority case and consolidated the cases. Justice Stephen Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of the petition.

On March 26, 2002, the Court unanimously, by an 8-0 vote, reversed,holding that the statutory language that directed housing authorities to evict tenants whose premises are used for drug activity whether they knew about the activity or not is unambiguous.

"And, of course, there is an obvious reason why Congress would have permitted local public housing authorities to conduct no-fault evictions," wrote Chief Justice Willam Rehnquist. Citing the Federal Register, Rehnquist concurred that regardless of knowledge, a tenant who can't control drug crime by a household member is a threat to other residents in the project.

Rehnquist also disposed expeditiously of the argument that such a policy would pose due process problems, saying the Court has already ruled in a similar case that that's not the case.