For sure. The article said Delta Upsilon was placed under suspension, but Sigma Chi was operating outside the purview of the university. I don't think it matters either way since the AG, IMHO, will seize both houses under the asset forfeiture law. It was more than just a couple dudes being stupid. It was stupidity at the house leadership level.
The article noted the drug packaging took place within the houses. Since the whole operation was condoned by the leadership/management of both places, I think the AG would have a strong argument to seize both premises. It was a criminal operation being run from within both houses with the pledges performing criminal activity to gain acceptance into said operation. "Wanna be in our fraternity?? You need to help us package and distribute drugs".
I’m not a lawyer, and not an expert on forfeiture laws, so this is just my interpretation of a quick investigation. If a home is used by its owners for illegal activity, there is a possibility of it being seized. Whether or not it can be seized is based on the nature of the crime (courts evaluate forfeiture on whether it’s fair and proportional to the offense).
All of the frat houses are owned by corporations (basically, alums of the frat), which rent the rooms to the brothers and the house to the frat. Rental properties can be seized, but the threshold for doing so is somewhat higher than what it is for for a home owned by the offender or the offender’s family. The landlord can claim that they didn’t know about such activities, and that the leases included language which forbade the illegal activities. The extent to which the landlord monitored the property, had zero-tolerance leases, and reported problems to the police factor into whether or not the property can be seized.
In short, it doesn’t appear to be as cut and dry as has been implied.