Apparently forced evictions from residential housing due to financial inability to pay rent is considered to be a human rights violation. Cases involving human rights are on thin ice in the United States since the US has not ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in a way that creates case law or standing under that declaration. It might be argued that various international trade agreements do create a legal obligation to harmonize their human rights practices with those of the rest of the world (similar to that derived from the ratification of treaties). It may also be fairly simple to convince municipal governments to endorse the Declaration of Human Rights (as some cities have declared themselves in opposition ot the War in Iraq, or have declared their cities "Nuclear Free Zones"). I think city governments would be hard-pressed to explain why they are opposed to human rights.
Adoption of human rights policies at the city, county or state level might curtail the practice of using armed force (city police and sheriffs) for forced evictions.
I also have some fairly radical yet feasible ideas for the elimination of landlordism as a practice. This involves legislatively mandated divestiture of rental housing by converting all rental housing to stock corporations and selling shares to the tenants in exchange for their rental payments. Why should a tenant make someone else's house payments and not receive equity in return? Landlordism, like slavery and other remnants of the feudal and colonial era, could be eradicated in a generation. Whether there is sufficient popular or legislative support for this kind of basic change to property law remains to be seen. I consider it unlikely at present, but as the wealth gradient in the United States continues to increase and society becomes increasingly stratified (the so-called "Barbell Society") there may be a growing demand for housing reform and other forms of economically neccessary wealth redistiribution.