Federal Judge Overturns CDC’s COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium as an Unconstitutional Power Grab

Maricopa County constable Darlene Martinez signs an eviction order on October 7, 2020 at Phoenix, Arizona. Although county and state officials say they’ve tried to educate the general public on the protections, many renters stay unaware and fail to complete the necessary forms to stay in their houses. Oftentimes landlords have worked out more flexible payment plans with vulnerable tenants, although these temporary solutions have become fraught since the pandemic stinks on.
A federal judge on Wednesday tossed a nationally flooding moratorium originally promulgated from the Donald Trump age U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as a reply to the continuing coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
The sequence, which has only been enforced piecemeal across the country due to the fact that many landlords have disregarded it and courts have been loath to enforce ithas staved off shore and homelessness for tens of thousands of Americans. Those families now face an increasingly uncertain future.
At a 20-page memorandum opinion, Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich discovered that CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky exceeded her authority when she recently issued the”Temporary Halt at Residential Evictions To Stop the Additional Spread of COVID-19″ sequence in early September 2020 at the behest of the 45th president.
The order was then extended and later endorsed by the U.S. Congress and present President Joe Biden.
“[T]he CDC dictate must be put aside,” the court ruled — stressing that vacating the order nationally was consistent with”settled precedent” along with the applicable federal law regulating administrative agencies.
Even the CDC missive, twice since revived, declared “a landlord, proprietor of a residential house, or other individual having a legal right to pursue burial or possessory actions will not evict any insured individual” and provided guidelines for renters to claim housing protected harbors amidst both broad and profound financial chaos due to the pandemic.
Three property management firms sued because some of their tenants stopped paying rent, invoked the protections of the CDC’s flooding moratorium, and for that reason couldn’t be evicted.
The plaintiffs alleged several qualitative complaints against the CDC, but the D.C. District Court began and finished its analysis by specifying the agency had exceeded its jurisdiction with the order.
Judge Friedrich used the administrative law frame in the landmark case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., that is a multiple-step inquiry that determines whether an administrative agency is entitled to judicial deference over its own interpretation of a statute composed by Congress.
The inquiry’s first step would be to assess whether or not”Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue,” that is another way of asking whether the statute is ambiguous or not. Only if the statute is shown to be ambiguous by a courtroom will the additional steps be contemplated. Here, the number of measures the court permits itself to consider is often determinative in the way the decision is reached.
The court’s response to the initial question is typically dispositive. And that is what happened here.
“At Chevron’s first step, this Court must use the’ordinary tools of their judicial artwork,’ including canons of building,” she wrote. “All these canons confirm what the text reveals. The Secretary’s authority does not extend as far as the Department contends.”
Judge Friedrich explained the statute in question is clear — despite several attempts by the CDC to offer counter explanations for exactly what certain provisions in the Public Health Service Act indicate.
“The Department’s interpretation goes a lot.” The court said. “The very first sentence of [the statute] is the starting point in analyzing the reach of the Secretary’s delegated authority. However, it isn’t the ending point. Although it’s true that Congress granted the Secretary broad authority to protect the public health, in addition, it prescribed clear way by which the Secretary may achieve this purpose. And those means place concrete limitations on the measures the Department can choose to stop the interstate and global spread of illness. To interpret the Act differently will dismiss its text and structure.”
The court also offered another reason to revoke the moratorium:
[T]the canon of constitutional avoidance instructs that a court will construe a statute to avoid serious constitutional difficulties unless such a structure is against the apparent intent of Congress. An overly expansive reading of the statute which extends a nearly infinite supply of legislative power to the Secretary would raise serious constitutional issues, along with other courts have discovered. Congress did not state a clear intent to give the Secretary such sweeping authority.

Accepting the Department’s expansive interpretation of the Act would mean that Congress assigned to the Secretary the authority to solve not only this important question, but infinite others which are even subject to”deep and profound debate across the nation.” Under its reading, as long as the Secretary will make a determination that a given step is”required” to fight the international spread of illness, there is not any limit to the reach of his authority.
“In sum, the Public Health Service Act authorizes the Department [of Health and Human Services] to fight the spread of illness by means of a variety of measures, but these measures clearly do not encircle the nationally eviction moratorium put forth at the CDC Order,” the opinion continued. “So, [HHS] has exceeded the authority provided in? 361 of the Public Health Service Act.”
Read the full order under:
[image via John Moore/Getty Images]
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]