Opinion ID: 2785662
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Federal and State Provisions

Text: ¶15 We first turn to the purposes and objectives of the federal law at issue. With drug dealers 'increasingly imposing a reign of terror on public and other federally assisted lowincome housing tenants,' Congress passed the Anti–Drug Abuse Act 10 No. 2013AP2207 of 1988. Rucker, 535 U.S. at 127 (quoting § 5122, 102 Stat. 4301, 42 U.S.C. § 11901(3) (1994 ed.)). This Act states that: Each public housing agency shall utilize leases which . . . (6) 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. 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(l)(6). Section 1437d(l)(6) unambiguously requires lease terms that vest local public housing authorities with the discretion to evict tenants for the drug-related activity of household members and guests . . . . Rucker, 535 U.S. at 130. Thus, any drug-related activity engaged in by the specified persons is grounds for termination. Id. at 131. However, this statute does not require the eviction of any tenant . . . . Instead, it entrusts that decision to the local public housing authorities . . . . Id. at 133-34. ¶16 Congress enacted the Anti–Drug Abuse Act of 1988, with the objective of reducing drug-related crime in public housing and ensuring 'public and other federally assisted lowincome housing that is decent, safe, and free from illegal drugs.' Boston Hous. Auth. v. Garcia, 871 N.E.2d 1073, 1078 (Mass. 2007) (quoting Rucker, 535 U.S. at 134). See also Hous. Auth. of City of Norwalk v. Brown, 19 A.3d 252, 258-59 (Conn. App. 2011) (Congress declared that th[e] purposes and objectives [of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act] are 'to provide public and other federally assisted low-income housing that is decent, 11 No. 2013AP2207 safe, and free from illegal drugs.' (quoting Scarborough, 890 A.2d at 256)). ¶17 To achieve public housing that is decent, safe, and free from illegal drugs, Congress required public housing authorities to retain in their leases the power to evict tenants for any drug-related criminal activity. See Scarborough, 890 A.2d at 256-57; Boston Hous. Auth., 871 N.E.2d at 1078. By passing that requirement, Congress enacted a straightforward practical method of dealing with a serious public safety problem. City of S. San Francisco Hous. Auth. v. Guillory, 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 367, 371 (Cal. App. Dep't Super. Ct. 1995). At issue is whether Wis. Stat. § 704.17(2)(b) is in conflict with the accomplishment and execution of the objectives of the federal law. ¶18 The Wisconsin statute at issue provides: If a tenant . . . breaches any covenant or condition of the tenant's lease, . . . the tenant's tenancy is terminated if the landlord gives the tenant a notice requiring the tenant to remedy the default or vacate the premises on or before a date at least 5 days after the giving of the notice, and if the tenant fails to comply with such notice. Wis. Stat. § 704.17(2)(b). In its two briefs to this court, the Housing Authority questions whether the right-to-remedy provision in § 704.17(2)(b) can apply to drug-related criminal activity, even if this provision is not preempted.9 We question 9 In response to questions posed by this court at oral argument, the Housing Authority argued that Wis. Stat. § 704.17(2)(b) does not apply to criminal activity, regardless of whether it is preempted. 12 No. 2013AP2207 whether the legislature intended for the right-to-remedy provision to apply to drug-related criminal activity or criminal activity in general. We also question whether past criminal activity is capable of being remedied. See Brown, 19 A.3d at 256-59 (holding that Connecticut's statute providing a right to remedy by repair a lease violation did not apply to drugrelated criminal activity). However, we need not resolve this issue today because we conclude that 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(l)(6) preempts the right-to-remedy provision of Wis. Stat. § 704.17(2)(b) when a public housing tenant is evicted for engaging in drug-related criminal activity within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(l).