Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (2002)

Citation: Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (2002)
Parent Document: Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (2002)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2002-03-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/118490/department-of-housing-and-urban-... ↗

Full Text

831 chars

And, of course, there is an obvious reason why Congress would have permitted local public housing authorities to conduct no-fault evictions: Regardless of knowledge, a tenant who “cannot control drug crime, or other criminal activities by a household member which threaten health or safety of other residents, is a threat to other residents and the project.” 56 Fed. Reg., at 51567. With drugs leading to “murders, muggings, and other forms of violence against tenants,” and to the “deterioration of the physical environment that requires substantial government expenditures,” 42 U. S. C. § 11901(4) (1994 ed., Supp. V), it was reasonable for Congress to permit no-fault evictions in order to “provide public and other federally assisted low-income housing that is decent, safe, and free from illegal drugs,” § 11901(1) (1994 ed.).

Other Sections in This Document (59)

Full Text