In the case Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Pearlie Rucker et al., 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public housing authorities can evict tenants for drug-related criminal activity committed by a household member or guest, even if the tenant had no knowledge of such activities. The court's decision was based on an interpretation of federal law which allows eviction "if any member of a tenant’s household or any guest engages in drug-related criminal activity." Four elderly tenants from Oakland, California challenged this policy after facing eviction due to their relatives' illicit actions conducted without their awareness or consent. However, the Supreme Court upheld it with an unanimous vote (8-0), asserting that "strict liability" is necessary to maintain safe living conditions in public housing projects.

In the dissenting opinion for Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Pearlie Rucker et al., Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's interpretation of federal law was overly broad, leading to unjust results. She contended that Congress did not intend for innocent tenants to be evicted due to drug-related activities they had no knowledge or control over. Instead, she believed the statute should apply only when a tenant knew about or could reasonably foresee such illegal activity by household members or guests. Furthermore, she criticized the majority’s reliance on agency interpretations rather than legislative history in their decision-making process. In her view, this case represented an instance where strict adherence to statutory language resulted in unfair punishment for individuals who were blameless and unaware of any wrongdoing.