In Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker, the United States Supreme Court upheld the agency's use of the "one strike" eviction policy, which requires housing authorities to issue leases with the condition that tenants who engage in any drug-related criminal activity are subject to eviction. Moreover, the court held that a tenant's ignorance of the activity is not a defense to eviction. Although this ruling appears consistent with the Court's decision in Goldberg v. Kelly, the seminal case delineating the government's ability to terminate public assistance, the one strike eviction policy nevertheless suffers from several problems that limit its effectiveness. In particular, housing authorities have excessive discretion when implementing the policy; the policy does not define "engaging" in drug-related criminal activity; and the policy fails to prevent non-residents from participating in drug-related criminal activity in the housing community. This Article proposes means of alleviating these problems to increase the effectiveness of the one strike eviction policy.