## Facts

- Four tenants of the Oakland Housing Authority lived in federally subsidized public housing subject to HUD oversight.
- Each lease included a “one-strike” provision based on 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(l)(6), requiring the tenant to ensure that household members, guests, or persons under the tenant’s control did not engage in drug-related criminal activity on or near the premises.
- Oakland Housing Authority initiated state unlawful detainer (eviction) actions based on drug-related criminal activity by household members or guests, not by the tenants themselves.
- HUD regulations authorized public housing authorities to evict for drug-related criminal activity by household members or guests even when the tenant did not know of, could not foresee, or could not control the conduct.
- The tenants sued in federal court, arguing that § 1437d(l)(6) does not authorize eviction of “innocent tenants,” and that such an interpretation raised constitutional concerns.

## Issues

1. Whether 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(l)(6) requires public housing leases to make drug-related criminal activity by a tenant’s household member or guest a ground for termination regardless of the tenant’s knowledge.
2. Whether § 1437d(l)(6) mandates eviction upon such conduct, or instead grants housing authorities discretion to terminate.
3. Whether HUD’s regulation allowing eviction of tenants without fault conflicts with the statute’s meaning.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit and upheld HUD’s interpretation.
- The Court held that § 1437d(l)(6) unambiguously requires leases to treat “any” drug-related criminal activity by the tenant, a household member, or a guest (or other person under the tenant’s control) as cause for termination, without a tenant-knowledge requirement.
- The Court interpreted “shall be cause for termination of tenancy” to require that leases permit termination on that basis, while leaving the decision whether to evict to local housing-authority discretion.
- The Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s reliance on *Chevron* to invalidate HUD’s regulation because the statutory text was unambiguous.
- The Court declined to adopt a narrowing construction based on constitutional-avoidance arguments and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- When statutory text is unambiguous, courts apply its plain meaning and do not treat the dispute as one for agency gap-filling under *Chevron*.
- In § 1437d(l)(6), Congress’s use of “any” and the absence of a fault or knowledge qualifier mean that drug-related criminal activity by specified third parties can support lease termination even as to a tenant who lacked knowledge.
- “Shall be cause for termination of tenancy” establishes a permissible ground for eviction that must be included in public housing leases; it does not require eviction in every case.
- Public housing authorities retain discretion to decide whether to terminate a tenancy based on the covered drug-related criminal activity, allowing consideration of case-specific circumstances.

## Conclusion

The Court held that federal law requires public housing leases to allow termination when household members or guests engage in drug-related criminal activity, even if the tenant is unaware, while leaving the ultimate eviction decision to the housing authority’s discretion.


Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev. v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (2002)