Supreme Court Ends Eviction Moratorium
BY DREW HAMRICK
The Centers for Disease Control ( CDC ) forced the United States Supreme Court to legally slap the agency ( and the Biden Administration ) exceptionally hard in Alabama Association of Realtors , et al . v . Department of Health and Human Services . The Court had performed legal backflips to allow the CDC to save face in the case with its June 29 , 2021 ruling . It held the CDC Eviction Moratorium was invalid because it exceeded the CDC ’ s legal authority , but the Court allowed the CDC Moratorium to remain in place because it was only matter of weeks until the moratorium expired anyway ( on July 31,2021 ).
President Biden responded with a call on the CDC to renew the moratorium , even while acknowledged that it was illegal , which the CDC did on August 3 , 2021 . The Supreme Court reacted with lightning speed ( by federal court standards ) in issuing its decision on August 26 , 2021 , holding that “ It strains credulity to believe the CDC has been granted the sweeping authority that it asserts .”
The Court compared the CDC moratorium as the equivalent to mandating free grocery delivery to homes of the sick , requiring manufacturers to provide free computers to enable people to work from home , or telecommunication companies to provide free high-speed Internet service to facilitate remote work . The Court ’ s finding that the CDC ’ s authorization is little more than to quarantine the sick and prohibit the import or sale of animals known to transmit disease calls into question many of the CDC ’ s other excesses over the last year .
To understand the hubris of the CDC and the Biden Administration in ignoring the original ruling of the Court and the constitutional crisis that was created by the CDC ’ s decision to elevate this issue to a titanic game of chicken with the Court requires a little background on how the Supreme Court typically functions and some of its underlying goals .
The Supreme Court tries to stay in its lane . Each of the Court ’ s words are consumed by legal scholars and litigants across the country and used as a source to predict the outcome of future cases . Consequently , the Court consistently decides issues as narrowly as they can be decided ( which is a constant source of aggravation to those looking for greater levels of legal change ). It endeavors to make new decisions as consistent as possible with all past decisions and does all it can to avoid talking in broad and sweeping terms .
This is particularly true when the Court is analyzing administrative agency action . The growth of administrative agencies like the CDC began with depression era legislation . Initially there was great legal hostility to the powers of these agencies ( based in part on separation of powers arguments ) as many saw the exercise of administrative rulemaking as unconstitutional . The disputes eventually led to threats of court packing ( arbitrarily appointing more than 9 justices to the Court to achieve a different outcome on decisions ). Since that time , the Court has been very hesitant to weigh in with serious restraints on administrative agency power . The CDC clearly miscalculated that the Court would continue to be afraid to curb administrative agency action .
The timing and the speed of the Court ’ s decision is also fascinating . The Supreme Court maneuvered the case to issue its decision even before the case had been fully litigated through
24 | TRENDS SEPTEMBER 2021 www . aamdhq . org