It still covers some 90% of the country, and still rests on a theory of virtually limitless CDC authority. Even President Biden acknowledges the order is legally dubious.
The ruling is unsurprising. But it does further strengthen the case against the moratorium, and increases the odds the issue might eventually make it to the Supreme Court.
The Sixth Circuit's decision is at odds with that of the D.C. Circuit, and features a Judge Thapar concurrence on delegation.
Federal Court Enjoins Enforcement of "Tax Mandate" Barring States Receiving COVID-19 Funds from Cutting Taxes (Updated)
In a careful ruling, Judge Cole concludes Ohio made its case, and enjoins enforcement of the mandate against Ohio.
The Court lets the CDC's eviction moratorium remain in place, even though a majority seems to believe CDC's action is unlawful.
The latest extension, which is expected to the be last, runs until July 31. Meanwhile, the legal battle over the moratorium will continue. And the plaintiffs' position is likely to be strengthened by the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid.
The dubious decision breaks a streak of wins for plaintiffs challenging the legality of the CDC order.
Focusing on time and the "nondelegation baseline" would be one way to constrain excessive delegation.
This ruling has some distinctive elements, and may have a broader impact than previous decisions.
Two recent papers examine the state experience with nondelegation.
A unanimous Sixth Circuit decision upheld a lower court ruling holding that the moratorium is illegal.
Biden Administration Extends CDC Eviction Moratorium Until June 30—the Legal Battle Over it Will Continue
The new order is similar to the old, but includes an extensive section defending the measure on public health grounds.
This is the third court to rule that the moratorium is illegal. Two decisions have upheld it.
There are now two district court decisions ruling against the moratorium and two upholding it.
Two district court decisions have upheld the moratorium against various challenges, while one has ruled against it. The legal battle may be just beginning.
This action brings to an end a period when the US was more closed off to legal immigration than at any other time in the nation's history.
On delegation, time, and congressional capacity.
Ninth Circuit Rules Against Trump's Diversion of Military Construction Funds to Build his Border Wall
The divided 2-1 decision is the first court of appeals ruling to rule on the legality of a key part of the funding diversion effort.
The lawsuit raises a variety of important issues, including a nondelegation challenge. It could turn out to be a very significant case.
In it I explain how to reform a federal law the Supreme Court has interpreted as giving the president nearly unlimited power to ban migrants from entering the United States.
Other possible legal challenges to Trump's expanded travel ban may be precluded by the Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. Hawaii. This one is not.
As Trump's trade wars demonstrate, giving the president unilateral authority to impose tariffs is both dangerous and unconstitutional. Getting rid of it is likely to require a combination of litigation and political mobilization.