Browse Clearinghouse Review articles by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Communications & Marketing
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Fundraising & Development
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- Leadership
- Legal Research
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Technology
- Training
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
The "One Strike" Policy in Public Housing
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has encouraged local public housing authorities to implement a "one strike" policy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1437d(l)(6) and evict tenants for alleged criminal activity by the tenants or their associates, regardless of the tenants' fault, knowledge, or ability to control the activity. Courts have been split, with many refusing to apply strict liability to innocent tenants. HUD's position has been inconsistent, and its policy justifications have been weak. Courts should interpret the statute to contain either a fault, knowledge, or foreseeability requirement or an "innocent tenant" defense, particularly when read in concert with civil forfeiture laws.
