Memorandum from Lani Guinier to Jack Greenberg and Jim Nabrit Re: Major v. Treen (Louisiana Congressional Reapportionment)

    FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE 

C-21-&8 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: WASHINGTON REPORTERS 

FROM: Jesse DeVore, Director of Public Information 

RE: SUPREME COURT ASKED TO ALTER 

EVICTION PROCEDURES IN LOW 

INCOME PUBLIC HOUSING 

CASE TITLE: Thorpe v. Housing Authority of the City of Durham 

DATE OF ARGU- 

MENT: October 22-23, 1968 

QUESTION 

PRESENTED: Can a public housing authority evict tenants from 

a low-income project without telling them the 

reason for eviction; or giving them any hearing;or 

other opportunity to deny or explain any charges 

made against them, consistent with the due pro- 

cess clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments 

and other Federal laws. 

NATIONAL NEWS 

ANGLE: The same procedures have been followed by most of 

the 2045 local public housing authorities housing 

2.3 million people in low-rent projects across 

America. 

WASHINGTON:--The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) 

is representing a Durham, N. C., mother who received a 15-day 

eviction notice from a low-income housing project but was not 

told why she was being evicted and was refused a hearing by the 
Authority. 

The case, which is being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, is 

that of Mrs. Joyce C. Thorpe. Mrs. Thorpe and her family received 

their eviction notice from the MoDougaid Terrace project the 

day after she was elected president of the Parent's Club, a 

tenant organization. 

LDF associate counsel, James M. Nabrit III, will argue today 

and tomorrow (October 22-23) that: 

* Mrs. Thorpe was denied due process of the law by her 

eviction from state and federally supported low-income 

housing since no procedures existed to tell her the 

reason for eviction, or give her a hearing to contest 

the eviction. 

* The Durham Housing Authority may not evict Mrs. Thorpe 

arbitrarily and thus deny her "the benefits of its pro- 

gram for low-income families." 

Mrs. Thorpe was entitled to a notice of the reason her low- 

income housing benefits were cancelied. "Notice of the 

reasons for proposed governmentai action adversely 

affecting a citizen's interests has been regarded as an 

essential element of due process in a variety of contexts. 

(more) 

| 

| 

| 

| 



SUPREME COURT ASKED TO ALTER 

EVICTION PROCEDURES IN LOW Oct. 21, 1968 

INCOME PUBLIC HOUSING -2- 

* Mrs. Thorpe was entitled to an administrative hearing to 

contest the eviction. "The right to a hearing has long 

been regarded as one of the fundamental rudiments of fair 

procedure necessary where the government acts against 

a citizen's vital interest." 

The LDF will say that, according to the U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Redevelopment, there are approximately 2045 

local housing authorities with low-rent projects throughout 

the United States. 

For years the local authorities have given tenants only 

month-to-month leases and have evicted tenants without stating 

a reason. Since this case was first presented to the Supreme 

Court, the federal government in February 1967 adopted a new 

rule somewhat modifying the eviction procedures. 

A circular issued by the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, states that tenants must be informed of the reason 

for their eviction and must be given a chance to reply or give 

an explanation. 

However, the Supreme Court of North Carolina has said that 

these requirements do not apply to Mrs. Thorpe’s case. 

But the Supreme Court has not yet spoken on the subject, 

and persons interested in public housing hope that the Thorpe 

case will bring an authoritative statement of the rights of low- 

income tenants and local authorities. 

=o0= 

NOTE: The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) 

is a separate and distinct organization from the NAACP. Its 

correct designation is NAACP Leqal Defense and Educational 

Fund, Inc., which is shortened to LDF.