The Supreme Court interpreted a federal drug law to permit the eviction of public housing tenants for drug use by any household member or guest, even if the drug use takes place outside the apartment without the tenant's knowledge.

The 8-to-0 decision overturned a ruling by the federal appeals court in San Francisco, which had interpreted the provision of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 to bar the eviction of "innocent" tenants who had neither knowledge of nor control over their family members' drug use.

This interpretation was necessary to avoid the "serious constitutional question that would be raised by depriving tenants of their property without proof of individual wrongdoing" claimed the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

But Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said the law raised no constitutional issue and its terms were clear, as the court issued a 10-page opinion.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer recused himself because his brother, Judge Charles R. Breyer of Federal District Court in San Francisco, granted an injunction in 1998 to halt the eviction of four tennants by the Oakland Housing Authority in circumstances mirroring the current case.

Chief Justice Rehnquist opinioned that "There was nothing unusual, let alone unconstitutional, about 'no-fault evictions' of tenants who failed to meet a condition of their lease. In signing the leases, the tenants agreed to make sure that 'drug-related criminal activity' would not take place 'on or near the premises' and agreed that they faced eviction if the lease was violated."

Civil rights organizations had filed briefs in the case, Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker, No. 00-1770, to argue that the policy was unfair and would lead to increased homelessness.

.A brief filed by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School,  described evictions undertaken by housing authorities around the country as "horror stories" of "draconian enforcement." The brief further claimed that  "a tenant who has 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."

The four plaintiffs who challenged the evictions in Oakland included two whose grandchildren, who lived with them, were caught smoking marijuana in a housing project parking lot; one whose daughter was found with cocaine three blocks from the apartment; and a disabled 75-year-old man whose caretaker was found with cocaine in his apartment

Chief Justice Rehnquist said that Congress's intention to give public housing authorities the right to evict "innocent owners" like these was unambiguous, because of the statute's reference to "any drug-related criminal activity.". Rehnquist fuurther stated, "any drug-related activity engaged in by the specified persons is grounds for termination, not just drug-related activity that the tenant knew, or should have known, about."

The New York City Housing Authority said today that the court's decision would strengthen its  "zero tolerance for drugs and violent criminal activity" policy.

Corinne Carey, a New York lawyer who represents families fighting drug evictions from public housing, said the authority's approach resulted in breaking up families and undermining an addicted family member's chances for recovery.

Director of legal affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, Dan Abrahamson  said that the policy and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it reflected "the criminal justice approach to drugs that has failed us for 20 years."