October Term 2001 · Docket 00-1770

Does federal law bar evicting a tenant for another resident's drug crime?

HUD argues federal law mandates eviction for any drug crime in a unit. Rucker argues this ignores the specific tenant's innocence.

Official caption
Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Feldman argued that Congress acted to solve severe violence and drug crimes in public housing.

    Feldman stated that federal law does not specify particular defenses for tenants.

    Lafayette noted that the Oakland Housing Authority revised its lease to reflect HUD regulations.

    Lafayette explained that the lease changes occurred in three specific instances.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The dispute centers on a federal statute addressing drug crimes in public housing. HUD claims the law requires evicting the entire household. Rucker contends the law does not force eviction if the specific tenant did not commit the crime.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 19, 2002.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

HUD wants the Court to confirm that federal law requires evicting the tenant regardless of personal guilt.

Rucker wants the Court to rule that federal law allows the tenant to remain if they did not commit the crime.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

HUD argues that Congress enacted the statute to eliminate severe violence and drug crimes in public housing.

Rucker argues that the federal statute does not mandate specific defenses or force eviction without considering the tenant's actions.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted after the arguments concluded.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case determines whether public housing tenants can be evicted for crimes they did not commit. It defines the scope of federal authority over local housing leases. It impacts the stability of families in public housing programs nationwide.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON