-- -- -- -- -- - -- - -- -- - - - ----- -- --- -- - - - ---- - -- - - - -- ---- -- - -- -
"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." -- Mark Twain
NEURONAUTIC INSTITUTE on-line: http://home.earthlink.net/~thew
------ Forwarded Message
>>>>>>>>>>>The case arose out of the 1998 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which, among
3. Supreme Court Upholds Zero Tolerance in Public Housing --
Officials Can Evict Families Over a Member's Drug Use
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/230.html#supremefailure
If anyone ever needed proof that what is legal and what is just
are not necessarily identical, one need only look at this week's
Supreme Court decision in HUD v. Rucker, the case that pitted
poor, elderly public housing tenants against public housing
authorities who moved to evict them because of drug use by family
members. In a unanimous decision, the Court on Tuesday ruled that
public housing authorities may indeed evict tenants for drug use
by family members -- even if they did not know about it and even
if it occurred outside the property.
other things, required public housing agencies to use leases that
allow for eviction of tenants if the tenant, tenant's family
member, or guest engaged in drug-related crimes. The Oakland
Housing Authority enforced the measure with vigor, moving to
evict:
* Lead plaintiff Pearlie Rucker, 64, her mentally disabled teenage
daughter, two grandchildren, and a great-grandchild, because the
daughter possessed cocaine three blocks from the apartment.
* Willie Lee, 72, and Barbara Hill, 64, because their grandsons,
who lived in the unit, were caught smoking marijuana in the
parking lot.
* Herman Walker, 76, a disabled man ordered out of his home of 10
years after his caretaker and two guests were caught with cocaine
in the apartment.
The plaintiffs sued to block their evictions and the 9th US
Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in their favor,
calling a law that threw innocent tenants out onto the street
"absurd." The 9th Circuit argued that to avoid constitutional
problems, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act must be interpreted to bar the
eviction of innocent tenants without proof of individualized
wrongdoing.
The Supreme Court disagreed. "It is not absurd that a local
housing authority may sometimes evict a tenant who had no
knowledge of drug-related activity," wrote Chief Justice William
Rehnquist for the court.
In its ruling, the court assiduously avoided the constitutional
snares thrown up by the 9th Circuit, instead taking a crabbed view
of the case as a lesson in landlord-tenant law. "The government
is not attempting to criminally punish or civilly regulate
respondants [the tenants] as members of the general populace,"
wrote Rehnquist. "It is instead acting as the landlord of a
property it owns, invoking a clause in a lease" that tenants have
signed. There is no constitutional issue, Rehnquist wrote.
Civil rights and tenants' organizations had filed briefs in the
case to argue that the policy was unjust, resulting in "horror
stories" and "draconian enforcement." A brief filed by the
Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School said
"a tenant who has only a fleeting connection to the alleged
perpetrator of a crime is put at risk because of conduct that only
the most paranoid or clairvoyant tenant could possibly have
foreseen."
Tenant advocates, civil rights groups and drug reformers reacted
with horror to the decision. "The war on drugs is being waged
most viciously against poor people," the Drug Policy Alliance's
Daniel Abrahamson told the New York Times. "Any time the Supreme
Court takes a case with drugs in it, it is another opportunity to
further erode our civil liberties and constitutional rights."
Cornell University law professor Jonathan Macey told the Times the
decision "gives legitimacy to the war on drugs." It is "symbolic
and morale boosting" for drug warriors, he said.
Cardozo School of Law professor Paris Baldacci told the Times the
Supreme Court was more concerned with crime than with innocent
tenants. "It's that tone, that the court is so caught up in the
sort of drug panic that it doesn't step back," he said. "Instead
of getting the target who might be causing the reign of terror,
this is sweeping up all the people who might have a drug problem."
"The only way they can get away with it is because it affects poor
people," Sheila Crowley, head of the National Low Income Housing
Coalition told the Washington Times.
The ruling has opened up both President Bush and his brother,
Florida Governor Jeb Bush, to jabs from people who recall their
family members having drug problems while they occupy public
housing (the White House and the governor's mansion). The irony
is apparently lost on the Supreme Court.
This policy was propogated by HUD while that supposedly unrepetant liberal (hah!) Clinton was in the White House.
The Secretary of HUD at that time -- and hence the person directly responsible for promulgating the regulation upheld by the Supreme Court, was none other than Mario Cuomo's son Andrew Cuomo.
Andrew Cuomo is running in the democratic primary to be the party's candidate for governor of New York. In a nod to his father and generational politics, I was leaning toward voting for him. Then I read about this Supreme Court decision and his direct involvement in it. (When asked for comment after the ruling came down, his campaign declined, thereby missing an opportunity to disassociate himself from those regulations). He is running against an honorable and competent person named Carl McCall, who is, incidentally, the firswt African-American to be elected to a statewide position in this supposedly liberal state.
So, all N.Y. voters: Send a message to Cuomo and the drug warriors. Vote for McCall in the primary. Let these f---ers know that these sorts of decisions do not only have consequences for the poor people who are the victims of their policies. And let Cuomo's campaign know why you are voting the way you are.
------ End of Forwarded Message
--- Begin Message --- Friends,
In a previous email you may have read how Noam Chomsky says the "war on drugs" around the world is ia war on the poor and lower classes. It is a war designed to keep the masses under control by the terror tactics. The "supreme" court of this country has just made a ruling which obviously fits this description, ruling that poor tenants in public housing can be evicted if any family member uses drugs whether on their homes premisis or not. Now poor black families, barely able to have a home face homlessness in the name of the War on Drugs. Facism rules in America today.
[If you want to be removed from this mailing list just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word REMOVE in both the Subject line and the body of the email. If a friend wants to be added to the list have them send and email to the same address using the word SUBSCRIBE instead. As always, feel free to pass any part or all of this email onto your friends.]
~doug
======== from DRC Net newsletter #230 >>>>>>>>>>>
3. Supreme Court Upholds Zero Tolerance in Public Housing --
Officials Can Evict Families Over a Member's Drug Use
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/230.html#supremefailure
If anyone ever needed proof that what is legal and what is just
are not necessarily identical, one need only look at this week's
Supreme Court decision in HUD v. Rucker, the case that pitted
poor, elderly public housing tenants against public housing
authorities who moved to evict them because of drug use by family
members. In a unanimous decision, the Court on Tuesday ruled that
public housing authorities may indeed evict tenants for drug use
by family members -- even if they did not know about it and even
if it occurred outside the property.
The case arose out of the 1998 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which, among
other things, required public housing agencies to use leases that
allow for eviction of tenants if the tenant, tenant's family
member, or guest engaged in drug-related crimes. The Oakland
Housing Authority enforced the measure with vigor, moving to
evict:
* Lead plaintiff Pearlie Rucker, 64, her mentally disabled teenage
daughter, two grandchildren, and a great-grandchild, because the
daughter possessed cocaine three blocks from the apartment.
* Willie Lee, 72, and Barbara Hill, 64, because their grandsons,
who lived in the unit, were caught smoking marijuana in the
parking lot.
* Herman Walker, 76, a disabled man ordered out of his home of 10
years after his caretaker and two guests were caught with cocaine
in the apartment.
The plaintiffs sued to block their evictions and the 9th US
Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in their favor,
calling a law that threw innocent tenants out onto the street
"absurd." The 9th Circuit argued that to avoid constitutional
problems, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act must be interpreted to bar the
eviction of innocent tenants without proof of individualized
wrongdoing.
The Supreme Court disagreed. "It is not absurd that a local
housing authority may sometimes evict a tenant who had no
knowledge of drug-related activity," wrote Chief Justice William
Rehnquist for the court.
In its ruling, the court assiduously avoided the constitutional
snares thrown up by the 9th Circuit, instead taking a crabbed view
of the case as a lesson in landlord-tenant law. "The government
is not attempting to criminally punish or civilly regulate
respondants [the tenants] as members of the general populace,"
wrote Rehnquist. "It is instead acting as the landlord of a
property it owns, invoking a clause in a lease" that tenants have
signed. There is no constitutional issue, Rehnquist wrote.
Civil rights and tenants' organizations had filed briefs in the
case to argue that the policy was unjust, resulting in "horror
stories" and "draconian enforcement." A brief filed by the
Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School said
"a tenant who has only a fleeting connection to the alleged
perpetrator of a crime is put at risk because of conduct that only
the most paranoid or clairvoyant tenant could possibly have
foreseen."
Tenant advocates, civil rights groups and drug reformers reacted
with horror to the decision. "The war on drugs is being waged
most viciously against poor people," the Drug Policy Alliance's
Daniel Abrahamson told the New York Times. "Any time the Supreme
Court takes a case with drugs in it, it is another opportunity to
further erode our civil liberties and constitutional rights."
Cornell University law professor Jonathan Macey told the Times the
decision "gives legitimacy to the war on drugs." It is "symbolic
and morale boosting" for drug warriors, he said.
Cardozo School of Law professor Paris Baldacci told the Times the
Supreme Court was more concerned with crime than with innocent
tenants. "It's that tone, that the court is so caught up in the
sort of drug panic that it doesn't step back," he said. "Instead
of getting the target who might be causing the reign of terror,
this is sweeping up all the people who might have a drug problem."
"The only way they can get away with it is because it affects poor
people," Sheila Crowley, head of the National Low Income Housing
Coalition told the Washington Times.
The ruling has opened up both President Bush and his brother,
Florida Governor Jeb Bush, to jabs from people who recall their
family members having drug problems while they occupy public
housing (the White House and the governor's mansion). The irony
is apparently lost on the Supreme Court.
--- End Message ---
