TABLE OF CONTENTS I INTRODUCTION 60 II OVERVIEW OF THE EVICTION PROCESS 62 A High Volume, Short Hearing 63 B Eviction in the Digital Age 66 C Eviction and the Affordable Housing Shortage 68 III EVICTION AND THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF TENANTS 70 A Physical Health Outcomes 70 B Behavioral Health Outcomes 73 IV EXISTING LAW AND THE NEGATIVE HEALTH OUTCOMES OF EVICTION 73 A First Amendment Considerations: Judicial Openness and Compelling Privacy Interests 74 B Limiting Initial Disclosure: California's Second Approach 77 C Limiting Access After Entry of Judgment: Sealing and Expunging Eviction Records 77 D Regulating Tenant Screening Companies: Federal and State Approaches 79 E Regulating Landlords: The Oregon Approach 81 V A HEALTH EQUITY APPROACH TO EVICTION RECORDS 82 A Leveling the Playing Field: Representation for Tenant Defendants 84 B Protecting Innocent Tenants: Disclosure Contingent Upon Judgment for the Landlord-Plaintiff 85

I. INTRODUCTION

People spend more time in their homes than in any other location. As a result, the majority of allergen, irritant, and toxic substance exposure occurs in the home. (1) Substandard housing conditions disproportionately impact low-income, minority tenants who are confined to areas where the housing stock is poorly maintained. (2) For tenants with publicly-available eviction records, it is nearly impossible to obtain safe, decent, and affordable housing; this threatens not only the tenant, but also her family members' ability to achieve their full potential.

Eviction proceedings are a routine occurrence in courtrooms across the country. The large volume of eviction filings threatens the due process rights of tenants, particularly those that are pro se. (3) For example, in Chicago, the average duration of a hearing is under two minutes, and landlords are seldom required to establish the elements of a prima facie case entitling them to an order of possession. (4) Additionally, whether to place an eviction court file under seal is discretionary in nearly all jurisdictions. In practice, because the due process rights of pro se tenants are commonly violated, eviction court files are rarely placed under seal. (5) Consequently, nearly all tenants named in detainer actions have a publicly available record linking them to an eviction, regardless of fault and regardless of whether a judgment was entered. (6) In a digital age in which personal information is easily accessed and aggregated, court records result in automatic damage to an individual's renting prospects. These records are culled by tenant-screening companies and sold to prospective landlords, thereby creating a "tenant blacklist." (7) As a result, any tenant who has been named in an eviction proceeding is effectively barred from obtaining safe, decent, and healthy housing.

Following a court-ordered eviction, tenants struggle to find replacement housing that is both affordable and habitable. Consequently, eviction almost always results in a "downward move: a relocation to a disadvantaged neighborhood and/or substandard housing." (8) Because many landlords will not rent to tenants with a record of eviction proceedings, these individuals often must accept conditions worse than their previous housing. Compounding this issue, there is a well-documented, clear...