PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 6, 2009
No One Strike Eviction Act of 2009 - Amends the United States Housing Act of 1937 to revise the requirement that a public housing agency (PHA) establish administrative grievance procedures for one strike evictions of tenants from public and federally assisted housing for violent or drug-related criminal activity on or off such premises, or any activity resulting in a felony conviction.
Requires the PHA or other reviewing body, during such procedures, to consider all mitigating circumstances and the impact of such actions upon the family and dependents of that person.
Exempts a tenant from eviction or denial or termination of a tenancy based solely upon such individual's familial relationship to a person who has been convicted of a criminal offense.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Amends the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 to modify tenant requirements for PHA programs or federally assisted housing to make only an individual ineligible (currently, the entire household with the individual) if such individual is an illegal drug user or alcohol abuser.
Authorizes a PHA or owner to deny criminal offenders admission to such programs or housing, but not other members of the offender's household.
Amends the United States Housing Act of 1937 to exempt a tenant in public housing or housing assisted under the voucher program or any other section 8 rental assistance program from eviction for criminal or drug-related activity engaged in by a member of a tenant's household, or any guest or other person under the tenant's control, if: (1) the tenant did not know and should not have known of the activity; or (2) the tenant, a member of the tenant's household, or any guest or other person under the tenant's control was the victim of criminal activity.
People & committees
Rep. Jackson-Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18] · D–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.69 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.69 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.69 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.69 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.