The Court noted that since the previous trial in this case, the government has had more time to allocate funds to help tenants affected by the pandemic. Congress also indicated, the court said, that it would have to take action if the moratorium were to be extended, but it did not. The court noted that « our system does not allow agencies to act illegally, even if they pursue desirable goals, » concluding that it is now « for Congress, not the CDC, to decide whether to extend the moratorium. » On August 26, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order lifting the recent moratorium on evictions from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Earlier this month, the CDC issued an executive order prohibiting the eviction of residential tenants in counties with high community transmission of COVID-19, saying mass evictions would exacerbate the spread. The Alabama Association of Realtors, among other plaintiffs, has asked the Supreme Court to challenge the new moratorium. The plaintiffs originally filed a lawsuit alleging that the CDC`s first moratorium on evictions (which expired on July 31) exceeded their legal powers, and the district court agreed that the CDC had no authority and issued a summary decision to the plaintiffs to order the moratorium. However, the district court stayed its judgment pending the government`s appeal to the Washington Court of Appeals. When the plaintiffs filed an urgent petition with the Supreme Court to have the suspension lifted, the court rejected their request.
Judge Kavanaugh only accepted the decision because the moratorium in effect at the time was set to expire in a few weeks. He warned that any extension of the moratorium would require « clear and specific congressional approval. » Nearly two months after a divided court approved an earlier moratorium, the Supreme Court on Thursday night blocked the Biden administration from enforcing the recent federal moratorium on evictions imposed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The justices split along ideological lines, with the court`s three liberal justices — Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — departing from the eight-page unsigned decision. The decision was the Biden administration`s second defeat on the so-called « ghost race » in three days after the court on Tuesday night refused to block a lower court order requiring the Biden administration to resume the Trump-era policy of « staying in Mexico. » A divided Supreme Court rejected the protesters` request to lift the earlier version of the deportation ban. Judge Brett Kavanaugh provided the key vote to uphold the moratorium. While he agreed with protesters that the CDC did not have the power to declare the moratorium, he joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the court`s three liberal justices — Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — in voting to uphold the ban, saying it would expire at the end of July. The case to lift the moratorium on evictions was brought before the Supreme Court by the associations of real estate agents of Alabama and Georgia, supported by the National Association of Realtors. Hours after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the real estate agents` urgent request to end the Biden administration`s new moratorium on evictions, the real estate agents filed an urgent petition with the Supreme Court on August 20 (Memo, 8/23). The Justice Department submitted its opposition to the real estate agents` case to the Supreme Court on Aug. 23, making clear that the new moratorium was necessary because the course of the pandemic had changed « unexpectedly, dramatically and for the worse » since the Supreme Court last ruled on the moratorium in June. Realtors and the Supreme Court are taking steps to lift the moratorium on evictions at a time when the Delta variant of COVID-19 is overwhelming pediatric and other hospitals in Alabama, Georgia and across the country.
Alabama and Georgia have spent less than 3% of their Emergency Rent Assistance (ERA), and many other states and cities continue to struggle to get ERA from tenants who need it to stay stable. The court`s unsigned decision was 6-3, with the court`s three liberal justices disagreeing. AAR, p. 2, citing 42 U.S.C. ¢§ 264(a). The court recognized the CDC`s authority to take steps to prevent the interstate spread of the disease by identifying, isolating, and destroying the disease itself. However, the court found that the CDC order was too indirect. An attempt has been made to regulate the eviction of a subset of tenants who could move from one state to another, with a smaller subgroup potentially infected with COVID-19. The Supreme Court noted that Congress could speak clearly by authorizing an agency to exercise the powers of enormous economic and political importance exercised by the CDC in its order, but Congress had not done so. In addition, the CDC order invades an area that falls within the specific realm of state law: the landlord-tenant relationship.
Without clear congressional authorization, which was missing, the CDC order was too broad and was properly struck down. In March 2020, at the onset of the pandemic, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act to ease the burden caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the programs was a 120-day moratorium on evictions on properties that participated in government assistance programs or were secured by government-backed mortgages. See CARES Act, § 4024. Congress did not extend the deportation ban when it expired on July 25, 2020. The CDC intervened and issued an order to temporarily suspend housing evictions to prevent the spread of COVID-19. 85 Federal Regulation 55292 (2020). The CDC order covered all residential properties in the country and imposed criminal penalties on violators.
The Democratic Party should not assume that black voters will continue to run for them without new suffrage protections or substantial and material improvements in their realities and communities. Black voters played their part in the Democratic election; Now, Democrats must protect the black community from the court`s actions to disenfranchise them and their homes. Breyer J.A., joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, disagreed. Breyer J. began by saying that the Court can only lift a stay registered by a lower court if that court has manifestly and manifestly erred in the application of accepted standards. He concluded that it was « far from obvious » that the CDC did not have the authority to enact the new moratorium. He disagreed with the majority that Section 361(a) does not give the CDC the authority to impose a moratorium — the clear meaning of the law includes the moratorium as a measure that the agency deems essential to contain outbreaks. The second sentence should not be interpreted as restricting the first, but explicitly authorizing inspections and other measures required to enforce quarantine. He noted that it is not disputed that the law allows the CDC to take important measures such as quarantines, which arguably impose greater restrictions on individual rights and state police power than restrictions on evictions. In addition, the rise in COVID-19 cases is tipping the balance of actions toward residency, and the public interest is not furthered by the spread of COVID-19 or a court that « questions » the CDC`s decision.
He concluded that the legal issues raised about this federal law require « thoughtful decision-making informed by full briefing and reasoning » and that the CDC moratorium should not be lifted through summary proceedings. Several appellate courts have reviewed the CDC`s deportation order. In AAR, the trial court issued a judgment prohibiting enforcement of CDC 1:20-CV-03377-DLF (D.D.C. 5 May 2021), but stayed its order pending appeal. On June 29, 2021, the Supreme Court reviewed the order and left the stay in effect because, among other things, the order expired on July 31, 2021, and the stay would give landlords and tenants time to apply for federal rent assistance funds. The Supreme Court also called on Congress to act. 14. In July 2021, the Eleventh District dismissed a landlord`s appeal against the rejection of an application for a preliminary injunction prior to the proceedings that stayed the CDC`s eviction order. Brown v. Secretary U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1:20-cv-03702-JPB (11th Cir.
7-14-21). However, on July 23, 2021, the Sixth Circuit upheld the district court`s decision that the CDC exceeded its regulatory authority and did not have the authority by explicit language of the law to issue an eviction moratorium order. Tiger Lily, LLC v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2:20-cv-02692, 21-5256 (6th Cir. 7-23-21). « Without this order, evictions to these [higher-transmission] areas would likely exacerbate the increase in cases, » the CDC order said, adding, « COVID-19 vaccination efforts have a slower penetration rate among populations most likely to be displaced. » This decision illustrates the long series of American legal interventions that ignore the suffering of blacks.
