Coronavirus

A 5th Federal Court Has Struck Down the CDC's Eviction Ban

The latest ruling from the a U.S. District Court in D.C. finds the agency vastly exceeded its powers in banning landlords from trying to evict non-paying tenants.

|

A judge for the U.S. District Court of D.C. ruled today in a case brought by two realtor associations in Alabama and Georgia that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) ban on landlords filing to evict non-paying tenants vastly exceeded the agency's powers.

Beginning in September 2020, the CDC has prohibited such evictions on the grounds that they would result in evicted tenants moving in with family and friends or into crowded homeless shelters, potentially spreading COVID-19 along the way.

As a legal justification, the agency cited the Public Health Service Act, which grants federal public health officials the power to make regulations "reasonably necessary" to prevent the interstate spread of communicable diseases.

The CDC's eviction ban proved immediately controversial with property owners, who complained that the policy effectively required them to provide their product for free.

Multiple lawsuits have been filed by landlords against the CDC and the Department of Health and Human Service (HHS) arguing that if the agency could use public health laws to justify an eviction moratorium, then it could justify practically any policy.

It's an argument that proved persuasive with U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich.

"Though the Public Health Service Act grants the [Health] Secretary broad authority to make and enforce regulations necessary to prevent the spread of disease, his authority is not limitless," she said, writing that that broad authority does not "encompass the nationwide eviction moratorium set forth in the CDC Order."

Friedrich's ruling marks the fifth time that a federal court has ruled against the CDC's eviction ban. Two federal courts have upheld the policy.

"The CDC has absolutely no authority to enforce its eviction moratorium against anyone," said Luke Wake, an attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation. In March, a U.S. District Court in Ohio ruled in favor of the group's challenge to the CDC's eviction ban in the case Skyworks Ltd. vs. CDC. "Today's decision builds on our victory in Skyworks and affirms that landlords should be allowed to use the eviction process and not be compelled to provide housing for free."

Supporters of the eviction moratorium have urged the Biden administration to continue fighting to uphold its eviction ban.

"While this latest ruling is written more starkly than previous ones, it likely has equally limited application impacting only the plaintiffs who brought the case or, at most, renters in the district court's jurisdiction," said Dianne Yentell, president of the National Low-Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC). "The DOJ should immediately appeal the flawed ruling and the Biden administration should continue to vigorously defend and enforce the moratorium."

Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, writes in The Volokh Conspiracy that, contra Yentell's claims, "it is possible to interpret this ruling as holding that the CDC order is now invalid throughout the country, not just with respect to the parties to the case."

"It is worth noting that the jurisdiction of the [U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia] extends to federal administrative agency rulings throughout the country, and thus is not limited to a specific geographic area (unlike that of most other lower federal courts)," Somin added.

Time will tell how impactful today's ruling is. It nevertheless represents another loss for the CDC and its efforts to push the envelope on the bounds of its powers.

NEXT: 9th Circuit Hears Contradictory Arguments on Whether People Aged 18 to 20 Have a Right To Buy Weapons

Coronavirus CDC Public Health Property Rights

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

22 responses to “A 5th Federal Court Has Struck Down the CDC's Eviction Ban

  1. Good, this was a classic example of the old fascist concept of not needing to nationalize when they can simply control.

    1. JOB FOR USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much DDS better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…..VISIT HERE

  2. Well Yentell is quite the socialist. She’ll be hired by the senile Joe Biden administration soon.

  3. It’s gratifying that they came to the right decision. Nevertheless it’s too little too late. The damage has been done – wealth squandered and properties lost. The fact is, the war today is online not in the streets or at the capitol or in the courts. Thus I don’t blame the government as much as the landlords who refused to fight and instead only made endless cowardly excuses and bickered with their allies as will now be demonstrated:

    1. “…The fact is, the war today is online not in the streets or at the capitol or in the courts…”

      Horseshit.
      Whatever you pay for your new ‘phone, don’t. Send it to Pacific Legal Foundation ( https://pacificlegal.org/ ).
      And more, also.

    2. Property ownership is a privilege. If you are not willing to state your core principles then why should a judge grant you the privilege of property ownership?

  4. OK, as punishment justice, now evict the CDC.

    1. #defundCDC

      1. #executeFauci

  5. “…”The CDC has absolutely no authority to enforce its eviction moratorium against anyone,” said Luke Wake, an attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation…”

    These guys seem the only outfit clawing our liberties back from Newsom, et al.

  6. It nevertheless represents another loss for the CDC and its efforts to push the envelope on the bounds of its powers.

    Bullshit. It may be a loss for the CDC and its efforts to push the envelope on the bounds of its authority, but the government no longer has any bounds on its power.

  7. Another check is in the mail.

  8. It’ll be “moot” by the time it’s decided or not decided on appeal because there’s no longer a controversy. That’s my guess anyway.

    1. “It’ll be “moot” by the time it’s decided or not decided on appeal because there’s no longer a controversy. ”

      So we’re all in agreement the CDC overstepped its writ?
      Or is English still a mystery in your 3rd year of 6th grade?

  9. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention and Private Housing really took it in the family jewels with this ruling.

  10. Shemales Sex Newcastle is the best web place for lonley people who’s looking for free chat with fine girls in UK

  11. They’ll just find a reason to continue the eviction ban after Covid goes away (if it ever does). Probably something like “eviction causes homelessness, which has a negative impact on public health”. This will be great for those who miss the slums of the 1970s-80s

  12. Renters rights: If you’re not paying rent then you’re not a renter.

  13. And yet, the moratorium remains in force.

    A lot like where I live; the legislature and the state supreme court has ruled that our governor has overstepped the bounds of her office by imposing some of the most draconian restrictions in the country. She pretty much told them to fuck off and did it any way.

  14. “has struck” sounds awful

    struck … has stricken … strikes

Comments are closed.