Question: The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 provides that each "public housing agency shall utilize leases which provide that any criminal activity that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants or any drug-related criminal activity on or off such premises, engaged in by a public housing tenant, any member of the tenant's household, or any guest or other person under the tenant's control, shall be cause for termination of tenancy." Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations implementing the Act authorize local public housing authorities to evict tenants for drug-related activity of persons listed in the statute even if the tenants did not know of the activity. The Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) instituted eviction proceedings in state court against four tenants, alleging that they had violated a lease provision obligating tenants to "assure that any member of the household, a guest, or another person under the tenant's control, shall not engage in any drugrelated criminal activity on or near the premises."

Allegedly, the respective grandsons of tenants Lee and Hill were caught smoking marijuana in the apartment complex parking lot, and the daughter of tenant Rucker was found with cocaine and a crack cocaine pipe three blocks from Rucker's apartment. In addition, on three instances within a two-month period, 75-year-old tenant Walker's caregiver and two others were found with cocaine in Walker's apartment. Lee, Hill, and Rucker claimed to have been unaware of their grandsons' and daughter's illegal drug abuse, and Walker fired his caregiver upon receiving the eviction notice. In response to OHA's actions, the four tenants just mentioned filed suit in federal court, arguing that the Anti-Drug Abuse Act should not be interpreted as authorizing the eviction of innocent tenants (i.e., tenants who did not know of the drug activity on or near the premises). Were the tenants correct?