Memorandum re: Supreme Court Asked to Alter Eviction Procedures in Low Income Public Housing

    President 

Hos. Francis E. Rivers 

PRESS RELEASE Director-Counsel 
egal efense lund Jee Groeubess 

Director, Public Relations NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. Jesse DeVore, Jr. 10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 * JUdson 6-8397 FOR RELEASE NIGHT NUMBER 212-749 

TUESDAY 
March 21, 1967 

MEMORANDUM 

WASHINGTON REPORTERS 

Jesse DeVore, Director of Public Information 

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 ARGUMENT: March 21, 1967 

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 process 
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 McDougald Terrace project the day after she 
was elected president of the Parents' Club, a tenant organization, 

LDF attorneys, led by Associate Counsel James M. Nabrit III, will 
argue 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 arbit- 
rarily and thus deny her "the benefits of its program for low- 
income families," 

Mrs. Thorpe was entitled to a notice of the reason her low- 
income housing benefits were cancelled. "Notice of the reasons 
for proposed governmental action adversely affecting a citizen's 
interests has been regarded as an essential element of due 
process in a variety of contexts." 

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," 

(more) 



SUPREME COURT ASKED TO ALTER 
EVICTION PROCEDURES IN LOW 
INCOME PUBLIC HOUSING March 21, 1967 

The LDF will say that, according to the U.S. Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, 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 govern- 
ment in February 1967 adopted a new rule somewhat modifying the evic- 
tion procedures. 

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. 

Columbia University Assists 

This is one of the first cases in the LDF's new program of liti- 
gation to protect and establish the rights of poor people, The LDF is 
acting, in this case, in cooperation with the Center for Social Welfare 
Policy and Law of Columbia University. 

LDF attorneys who filed the petition included Director-Counsel 
Jack Greenberg, James M, Nabrit III, Charles Stephen Ralston, Michael 
Meltsner, Charles H. Jones, Jr., and Sheila Rush Jones of the New York 
office, and M.C. Burt of Durham, 

They were joined by attorneys Edward V. Sparer, Martin Garbus, 
and Howard Thorkelson of the Center for Social Welfare Policy and Law 
of Columbia University. 

=a0 

EDITOR'S NOTE: A grant of $1,000,000.00 was made to the Legal Defense 
Fund last November by the Ford Foundation, That money, which repre- 
sented the largest single contribution by a major foundation in the 
history of civil rights, is being used to establish and operate the 
National Office for the Rights of the Indigent (NORI), 

Based on its own research and contacts with local offices pro- 
viding legal services for the poor, NORI will take up cases likely to 
set national precedents in such fields as welfare benefits, public 
housing, landlord-tenant and creditor-debtor law, consumer protection, 
and special problems in criminal, family, and juvenile law. 

It will also handle significant cases referred by local-service 
offices and individual practitioners, or furnish lawyers to help local 
offices in such cases. It will also provide funds to enable special- 
ized lawyers to work on difficult cases and help marshal volunteer 
services from law schools and law firms. 

NORI is thus envisaged as a center of strategy and planning in the 
field of legal rights for the poor as well as a national resource for 
the hundreds of offices now providing legal services for the poor, most 
of which must cope with heavy caseloads and lack adequate staff and 
funds to underwrite a precedent-setting case, 

4 In its research on poverty law, NORI will work with the Center for 
ae Welfare Policy and Law at Columbia University School of Social 
Work,