|
Student Publications Homepage
ARTICLE CONTENTS
[Pages 1229-1262]
TOP OF ARTICLE
Introduction
I. The Public Housing Crisis and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
A. Background on Public Housing, the Public Housing Crisis
and Enactment of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988
B. Competing Interpretations of � 1437d(l)(6) Based on
Legislative History and Intent
II. No-Fault Evictions Under � 1437d(l)(6) Upheld by Department of Housing & Urban Development v. Rucker
III. Competing Arguments Challenging and Supporting No-Fault, Third-Party-Action Evictions Under � 1437d(l)(6)
A. Substantive Due Process Challenges to � 1437d(l)(6)
1. Overbreadth of the Law
2. Vagueness of � 1437d(l)(6)
3. Personal Responsibility Challenge to No-Fault, Third-Party-Action Evictions Under � 1437d(l)(6)
B. Support for No-Fault Evictions Under � 1437d(l)(6)
1. Contract Law
2. Accomplishing Legislative Intent
IV. A Proposed Amendment to � 1437d(l)(6)
A. Substantive Due Process Concerns and History Compel a Notice Requirement for Third-Party-Action Evictions Under � 1437d(l)(6)
1. Substantive Due Process Concerns Compel a Notice Requirement for Third-Party-Action Evictions
2. History Compels a Notice Requirement for Third-Party-Action Evictions
B. A Necessary Distinction Between Household and Non-Household Members Engaging in � 1437d(l)(6)’s Prohibited Activities
C. Legislative Intent Supports an Actual or Constructive Notice Requirement and an Objective Standard for Evaluating Notice
Conclusion
|
