Oakland Renters Headed To The U.S. Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court takes on drug-related eviction case

By Josh Richman
STAFF WRITER

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday accepted the case of four elderly Oakland Housing Authority residents who have been threatened with eviction because their relatives or guests had drugs on public housing property.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in January shot down the housing authority\'s \"one strike and you\'re out\" policy, ruling tenants couldn\'t be punished for drug activity of which they had no knowledge or control.

Now the nation\'s highest court, at the Bush administration\'s urging, will weigh in to set a precedent affecting every public housing resident in the nation.

Paul Renne, an attorney for the plaintiffs, acknowledged the Supreme Court\'s very acceptance of the case might not bode well for his clients.

\"The common wisdom usually is they take cases where they\'re dissatisfied with the result (so far),\" he said. \"I hope that isn\'t the reason.\"

Oakland Housing Authority attorney Gary T. Lafayette said he hopes that\'s the reason exactly.

\"We hope this means they\'re going to...give this policy to housing authorities so they can properly address criminal conduct that takes place in public housing, and ensure residents are provided with safe and decent housing,\" Lafayette said.

At issue is the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development\'s \"one strike\" policy, holding tenants responsible for their visitors\' drug activity on or near public property.

The plaintiffs include:

Pearlie Rucker, 66, who lived with her daughter, her two grandchildren and her great-grandchild. Her son was found with cocaine three blocks from the apartment.

Willie Lee, 74, and Barbara Hill, 66, each of whom lived with a grandson who had marijuana in a public housing parking lot.

And Herman Walker, 78, who is disabled. His home health care worker brought crack cocaine into his house.

The housing authority moved to evict each tenant, and the tenants sued to keep their homes. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit appellate court upheld the eviction policy in February 2000, but that ruling was withdrawn six months later when the court voted to rehear the case with an 11-judge panel. That larger panel ruled in the plaintiffs\' favor in January.

The plaintiffs remain in their homes, the eviction proceedings against them stayed until this case is resolved once and for all.

The 9th Circuit\'s decision in January was 7-4, with dissenters suggesting the appellate court -- often accused of judicial activism and often reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court -- had once again gone too far.

The majority\'s opinion relied on a 1990 Senate report, which mentioned an expectation that each case under this law would be judged individually and wisely by housing authorities and the courts. \"For example, eviction would not be the appropriate course if the tenant had no knowledge of the criminal activities of his/her guests or had taken reasonable steps under the circumstances to prevent the activity,\" the report read.

The appellate court\'s majority cited this, as well as case law saying it can\'t assume Congress intended an \"odd or absurd result\" such as evicting someone for something they knew nothing about.

But the dissenters complained the majority should have either found a way to declare the law unconstitutional, or left it alone. By basically rewriting legislation and ignoring executive agencies\' judgment, the court overstepped its constitutional limits, the dissenters argued.

Catherine M. Bishop, an attorney with the National Housing Law Project in Oakland, said she\'s concerned the Supreme Court is taking this case -- and the government will argue it -- in a time when the nation\'s mood might be swinging toward sacrificing some civil rights in return for feeling safe and secure.

But Renne said he doubts the nation\'s post-terrorism fears will sway the court in this case: \"The issue here isn\'t one that goes to national security -- it goes to fundamental fairnesses of whether someone in public housing can be evicted without them having any control over the events causing the eviction, or even any knowledge of those events.\"


------------------------------------------------------------------------