Low Income Housing Project Eviction Procedures Taken to High Court for Review

    10 Columbus Circle 
New York, N.Y. 10019 
JUdson 6-8397 

NAACP 

Legal Defense and Educational Fund 
PRESS RELEASE FOR RELEASE 
President " x 2 FRIDAY 

ae 3 E. Ri 

ao October 21, 1966 
Jack Greenberg 

LOW INCOME HOUSING PROJECT 
EVICTION PROCEDURES TAKEN 
TO HIGH COURT FOR REVIEW 

1,400 Local Housing Authorities 
Across Nation Could Be Affected 

WASHINGTON---The U, S. Supreme Court was today asked to review the case 
of a mother and her three children who received a 15 day eviction 
notice from a low income housing project, without a hearing, the day 

after she was elected president of the Parents! Club, a tenant group. 

Attorneys of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 
* assert that the case “is of substantial public importance since 

its resolution has ramifications affecting the rights of recipients 
to all forms of welfare benefits." 

More specifically, LDF attorneys argue that the case is of "great 
importance" when it is solely viewed for its effects on "the rights of 
persons in public housing." 

The LDF petition points out that, according to the U.S. Department 
of Housing and Urban Development, "there are approximately 1,400 local 
housing authorities with low-rent projects throughout the United States. 

These authorities, the lawyers assert, have been advised by the 
United States Public Housing Authority to draw up their tenant leases 
on a month to month basis. 

And, in the Department's own words, local authorities "perhaps 
without exception, have followed this recommendation, This practice 
does permit evictions to be accomplished after the giving of a notice 
to vacate which does not state the reason therefor." 

Thus, the lease signed by Mrs, Joyce C. Thorpe in November 1964 
with the Housing Authority of the City of Durham, N.C. for occupancy 
in McDougald Terrace “is substantially identical to that used by the 
hundreds of state and municipal housing authorities administering 
federally assisted low-income projects, according to LDF lawyers. 

Mrs. Thorpe, in receiving notice of eviction and being denied a 
hearing, was denied rights guaranteed by the due process clause of the 
14th amendment and the first and fifth amendments of the U.S. 
Constitution, her attorneys maintain. 

The power of the Durham Housing Authority "to evict without a 
hearing, and hence for no reason or at the unbridled whim of housing 
officials, runs directly contrary to the purposes of insuring low-income 
citizens a decent place to live and of promoting security and stability 
in the poor families," the LDF petition asserts. 

“For these reasons, the question presented by this case is no less 
than whether thousands of persons are able to live at a minimum level 
of comfort and decency without being denied this right by arbitrary and 
unexplained actions of public agencies. 

"In addition," the LDF brief says, “the broader question is 
involved of the right of persons receiving any public welfare benefits 
to at least a bare minimum of procedural protection before the very 
necessities for life are taken from them." 

(more) 
Jesse DeVore, Jr., Director of Public Information—Night Number 212 Riverside 9-8487 es 



LOW INCOME HOUSING PROJECT -2- October 21, 1966 
EVICTION PROCEDURES TAKEN 
TO HIGH CQURT FOR REVIEVW! 

Mrs, Thorpe and her children are still tenants in the Durham 
housing project, under order of the North Carolina Supreme Court pre- 
venting their eviction until the U.S. Supreme Court passes on their 
petition for writ of certiorari. 

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 Center for Social Welfare 
Policy and Law of Columbia University. 

LDF attorneys filing the petition include 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 are joined by attorneys Edward V, Sparer, Martin Garbus, and 
Howard Thorkelson of the Center for Social Welfare Policy and Law of 

Columbia University. 

=30- 

* This is a separate, independent organization from the NAACP, The 
names are similar because the Legal Defense Fund was established as a 
different organization by the NAACP and through the years has gained 
complete autonomy.