CDC

Thoughts on the Sixth Circuit Ruling Against the CDC Eviction Moratorium

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.

|

As co-blogger Jonathan Adler explains, today the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued its decision in Tiger Lily, LLC v. US Department of Housing and Urban Development, ruling that the nationwide moratorium imposed by the Centers for Disease Control is illegal. As Jonathan notes, the decision is unsurprising because it reaches the same conclusion as the Sixth Circuit's own earlier ruling in the same case (denying the federal government's motion to stay the district court decision against the moratorium). The main difference is that today's decision is a final ruling on the merits.

I agree with virtually all of Jonathan's comments. As he points out, this deepens the circuit split with the badly flawed DC Circuit decision in favor of the moratorium, and thereby increases the likelihood that the issue will eventually reach the Supreme Court, if the moratorium is extended beyond its current July 31 expiration date. He is also right that the Supreme Court recently signaled that at least five of nine justices believe the moratorium is illegal, even as a narrow 5-4 majority also—for now—refused to block enforcement of the moratorium.

For the moment, the ruling will have only a limited effect, because the district court decision it upholds only forbids enforcement of the moratorium within the Middle District of Tennessee. It is not a nationwide injunction or even one that covers the entire territory over which the Sixth Circuit has jurisdiction. But the Sixth Circuit decision is still a notable setback for the moratorium, one that comes on the heels of many other rulings against it.

Jonathan extensively quotes Judge Amul Thapar's concurring opinion highlighting the nondelegation issue in the case, and its importance to our constitutional structure. Thapar is a very prominent conservative judge, and his opinion may well turn out to be influential. It's also worth noting that Judge John Bush's opinion for the court (joined by all three judges) also highlighted the nondelegation issue as an additional basis for the panel's ruling:

Finally, to put "extra icing on a cake already frosted," the government's interpretation of § 264(a) could raise a nondelegation problem.Van Buren v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1648, 1661 (2021) (quoting Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. 528, 557 (2015) (Kagan, J., dissenting)). Under that interpretation, the CDC can do anything it can conceive of to prevent the spread of  disease. That reading would grant the CDC director neardictatorial power for the duration of  the pandemic, with authority to shut down entire industries as freely as she could ban evictions….

In applying the nondelegation doctrine, the "degree of agency discretion that is acceptable varies  according to the scope of the power congressionally conferred." Am. Trucking, 531 U.S. at 475. Such unfettered power would likely require greater guidance than "such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases."

The implications of the government's position are actually even more extreme than the Sixth Circuit ruling suggests. Not only would the CDC enjoy "near-dictatorial power for the duration of the pandemic," it would continue to do so even during "normal" times. That's because the statute in question covers measures adopted "to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases." There are no limitations as to the severity or contagiousness of the disease in question (except that it must be "communicable").

Thus, if the federal government is right to claim that there are also no meaningful limitations on the nature of the "regulations" that can be adopted, the statute would give the federal government the power to suppress any activity that could potentially increase the spread of communicable diseases of any kind—whether it be Covid-19, the flu, or even the common cold. I discussed this issue in more detail in my very first post on the eviction moratorium, written in September of last year, when it was initially adopted under the Trump administration. Since then, several federal courts have ruled against the administration in large part because of similar concerns. I have written about these cases and the issues at stake in numerous previous posts, including here, here, and here.

We now have a total of nine lower court decisions on the legality of the eviction moratorium, of which six have ruled against its legality, while three have upheld it (see here for links to my analyses of the previous eight). That doesn't count a recent Eleventh Circuit ruling, in which a 2-1 majority refused to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the moratorium, but all three judges strongly suggested they believe the CDC order is illegal.

Today's ruling continues a pattern under which, with rare exceptions, Republican-appointed judges have ruled against the moratorium, while Democratic appointees have upheld it. All three of the judges on the Sixth Circuit panel are Republican appointees. This polarization is lamentable. In previous writings, I have noted some considerations that should at least give progressives some pause about allowing the executive branch to wield such sweeping power (see here, here and here):

[B]efore concluding that the CDC order is legitimate, I would urge liberals to consider whether they really want the next Republican administration to have the authority to suppress virtually any activity of any kind, so long as the CDC can assert that doing so would reduce the spread of disease even in a small way….. Do you really want the likes of Trump, Ted Cruz, or Josh Hawley to have that kind of power?

Nondelegation is far from being a principle that only helps conservatives. Aside from the [litigation over] CDC eviction order, the most recent important decision invoking it was a district court ruling striking down Trump's suspension of immigrant work visas.

If the CDC eviction order expires on July 31, as currently planned, this could well be the last significant ruling on the statutory and separation of powers issues at stake in these cases. But, for reasons I described here, landlords affected by the moratorium might well be able to continue to raise Takings Clause claims against it, seeking compensation for the financial losses they have suffered.

NOTE: The plaintiffs in some of the lawsuits against the eviction moratorium are represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, where my wife works (though she is not part of the litigation team handling the issue). I myself have played a minor (unpaid) role in advising PLF on the issues involved.

NEXT: Judge Quattlebaum Eulogizes His CivPro Professor In Erie Case

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.

  1. So does the illegality of the moratorium make the lost rent a “taking”?

      1. The lockdown was the biggest fraud heist in history. For 700 years, the practice has been to quarantine the infected. The oligarchs drummed up a hysteria abou this virus. It is possible the Chinese ones had it made and loosed on the world. They dropped the world GDP by $4 trillion, killed millions from starvation and from lack of medical care. Their wealth amassed $1.7 trillion in the US, $2 trillion in China. The US oligarchs envy the Chinese ones. These control the single party and the nuclear military. The US ones just control the Democrat Party, academia, the media, entertainment, now sports. They would a permanrnt one party state, as in China, in Cuba, in California. They could really go to town for their plunder.

    1. No, but the lengthy (if temporary) forced physical invasion of a person’s property does.

    2. That’s an interesting question, if I’m understanding you correctly. Does the question of the act’s constitutionality affect whether or not a taking occurred? Could it be a taking even if SCOTUS rules that it was constitutional?

      1. Is eminent domain constitutional? Yes. Is it a taking? Yes. Takings can be constitutional or unconstitutional, and one of the things that can make a taking unconstitutional is the failure to pay for the thing taken.

        Like with the rent.

        1. Makes sense.

    3. My guess is that “taking” claims will be in the courts for the next 20 years, if not longer.

      Even with both the 13th Amendment and the post-war political climate, it *still* took the 4th section of the 14th Amendment to end the “taking” claims for the freed slaves. And that involved claims no longer legitimate, while (I presume that) unpaid rent will remain a legitimate claim….

  2. “He is also right that the Supreme Court recently signaled that at least five of nine justices believe the moratorium is illegal, even as a narrow 5-4 majority also—for now—refused to block enforcement of the moratorium.”

    This unavoidably leads to the conclusion that at least one of the ‘justices’ does not object to the government acting illegally… Possibly more than one of them.

    1. When an officer pulls you over for speeding in a work zone and observes that the speed limit is temporary and due to expire tomorrow, let’s you go with a warning, does that mean to you that the officer doesn’t object to people illegally speeding?

      1. Comparing a traffic cop to a supreme court justice?

        1. Analogies, how do they work?

          1. Sometimes they don’t.

      2. When an officer pulls you over with a stolen car, with the real owner standing there demanding it back, does he observe that the thief has only committed to holding onto it another month, and say, “What the heck, keep it.”?

        No.

        Look, people are freaking going bankrupt over this. Landlords don’t collect rent for giggles, they do it as their source of income, and most of it goes to pay bills.

        1. So you can’t or don’t want to answer my question? When an officer pulls you over for speeding in a work zone and observes that the speed limit is temporary and due to expire tomorrow, let’s you go with a warning, does that mean to you that the officer doesn’t object to people illegally speeding?

          1. I mean, the speeding is illegal, right? Just like what the Justice observed.

            In your answer you seem to say ‘landlord stuff is *really* important in a way that speeding stuff is not!’

            Is that your argument? Then say it. Don’t go on about ‘omg he will let something illegal go on!’ My hypo involved that and you dodged it like it was a Man o War Jellyfish.

            1. “In your answer you seem to say ‘landlord stuff is *really* important in a way that speeding stuff is not!’

              Why do you think judicial discretion is comparable to the discretion the cop exercises when he lets you off with a warning?

            2. Why should he bother? Your “hypo” was absurd.

              you dodged it like it was a Man o War Jellyfish.

              Get over yourself, douchebag.

            3. Let be explain this in simple terms:

              There are crimes against the state. The state, as the offended party, is entitled to say, “No big deal, you can keep doing it for a while.” The cop is the representative of the state, and is entitled to let the criminal off with a warning, because he is the representative of the offended party.

              In these rental cases, the state is NOT the offended party, the landlord is. It is the landlord’s legal rights the state has decided will be violated without consequence, not the state’s rights.

              Do you understand that that is a relevant difference? The difference between somebody holding onto a library book, and the local government deciding it’s not worth going after them over, and somebody stealing YOUR book, and the local government deciding they can keep it?

              Your analogy sucks, and that’s why.

              1. That distinction is obviously true, but it has nothing to do with what he is asking you. Might there be a reason a Justice doesn’t want to take this particular case, other than the Justice “…doesn’t object to the government acting illegally…?” Just as there is a reason the cop lets you off with a warning, even though he doesn’t condone exceeding the speed limit.

          2. Do you freaking understand the difference between a malum prohibitum offense against the state, one where the law was deliberately crafted to permit selective enforcement, and a malum in se offense against another citizen?

            When you speed, you’re just violating an arbitrary and usually irrational law. One that was meant to be routinely violated, with most ‘offenders’ let off, because the state derives income from the tickets, and needs a lot of excess people ‘violating’ so that it can control revenue without hitting a shortfall just because not enough people decided to speed.

            Speeding, within the ordinary range, (Not 60mph in a residential zone!) is a lousy analogy to a genuine felony that harms people, like not paying for thousands upon thousands of dollars of services you’re recieving.

            Let your house be burgled, and the cop say, “Oh, what the heck, let him keep your TV, he says he’ll return it in a month or two.” and let’s see what you think about it.

        2. Maybe if landlords are going bankrupt over this, they should consider getting an actual job. You know, exchange productive labor for money, instead of parasitically collecting rents from their working tenants.

          1. You mean like fixing plumbing,, electrical and heating so that another person or family may have a place to live?

          2. Ah, you think landlords are parasites, who deserve to be cheated out of the rent people agreed to pay. I suspected it was something stupidly offensive like that, but thanks for confirming it.

            1. Yes, I (like Adam Smith) recognize that landlords are parasites. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.

          3. This is a poor argument, A.T.

            I’m with the conservatives on this. The moratorium is bad policy.

            What it does is take a perfectly reasonable, IMO, goal – help tenants who lost income due to the pandemic – and load the burden onto landlords.

            Here’s an idea. IIUC, the tenant is supposed to ultimately pay the accrued unpaid rent. So let the Treasury provide landlords with non-recourse loans in the amount of unpaid rent, secured by these future payments.

            1. It’s a bad policy if your goal is to minimize the negative effects on landlords. But I (and many, if not most other people) see that as a feature, not a bug.

              1. As someone who rents, has rented for years, hopes to own someday, but not yet, I cannot help but recognize your “feature” as a very serious, very awful bug.

                I don’t care what Adam Smith has said about it, but landlords provide a very important service: they provide people places to live and work, who for whatever reason, don’t want to deal with the burden of owning something.

                And like all services and goods, it comes with its own blessings and pitfalls. It may be a way to make money, but it’s not guaranteed — if they can’t get renters, they don’t get the income they may need, and if they don’t provide the agreed-upon services, they may very well find they can’t get renters — and your distain for landlords doesn’t recognize this basic fact.

                What’s worse, if we were to satisfy your desire to get rid of landlords, you’ll force all of us into one of two positions: either go homeless, or be home-owners, which in many cases are both undesirable.

                1. I never said that we should get rid of landlords. I merely think that they should receive compensation commensurate with the services they provide, not the value of the land itself. As it currently stands, they are able to extract rents based on the land itself, with little relationship to any actual work they’ve performed.

                  Even landlords themselves, when they are speaking frankly, admit as much, referring to it as “passive income” and the like. So why should we pretend like they are performing valuable, productive work, when they very clearly are not?

                  There is also the matter of reducing the political and social power of landlords as end in itself. As a result of their special privileges and idleness, it is not surprising that they, as a class, are among the most atavistic, racist, and antisocial people America has to offer (evidenced in part by the comments of landlords on this site). Taking away their privileges of passive income (and the power that comes with it) couldn’t hurt.

                  1. Wow….

                    This manages to miss the entire, massive, class of what is called “Capital Investment”

                    Let’s pretend for a second, Auntie, that you spend 2 years of your life, full time, personally putting up a small house. You also saved 10% of your salary, every year for the previous 30 years, and sunk all of that into materials for the house and food for yourself.

                    At the end of those 2 years of labor you have a new house, in good condition. You’ve sunk the equivalent of 4000 hours of personal labor into it to build it, not to mention 6000 hours of labor for the materials via the savings. Now, it’ll only take an hour a week to maintain.

                    You think the landlord should “only” be allowed to charge for that hour a week in labor? That’s your stance?

                  2. “speaking frankly, admit as much”
                    They admit nothing of the sort. They are FORCED to call that income passive by the IRS no matter how much work they do for tenants.
                    The only group for which the IRS declares it “active” is realestate developers such as the Orange Clown.
                    Next time read up on the tax law.

                    You see landlords as a group of white males, hence your racist hate of them.

                  3. I never said that we should get rid of landlords. I merely think that they should receive compensation commensurate with the services they provide, not the value of the land itself.

                    And part of the service they provide is tying up capital in their rental property.

              2. “a feature, not a bug”
                The bug is in your brain.

              3. It’s a bad policy if your goal is to minimize the negative effects on landlords.

                I’m not so much about minimizing negative effects on landlords as I am about costs being borne appropriately.

                What would you think about a requirement that grocery stores provide free food to those whose income falls as a result of the pandemic. For the sake of the discussion, assume that it’s agreed that we want to help those people buy food. What’s the best approach?

          4. “they should consider getting an actual job.”
            We don’t need your ilk in America.
            You should try honest work and real thinking for a change

              1. Tell us what honest work you do and for how long?
                Or have you just been sucking on the tit of government for decades.

          5. This will come as a surprise it appears, but many of the ‘parasites’ you refer to do have ‘actual jobs’ as well. I understand that you are biased and ignorant, but a tiny amount of thought before commenting might strengthen your argument.

      3. The temporary speed limit is an enumerated power of the DOT and enforced at the discretion of LEO. There is no such enumerated power for the CDC to deprive citizens of their property as protected by the 4th amendment.

        1. No, it’s actually a statute giving the power to the DOT…

      4. When an officer writes you a ticket for speeding in a work zone that expires tomorrow, are you not entitled to challenge the ticket in a subsequent court hearing?

        Conversely, if a construction worker is injured because you were speeding through the temporary work zone, is the temporary nature of it a defense in the subsequent civil litigation?

    2. “This unavoidably leads to the conclusion that at least one of the ‘justices’ does not object to the government acting illegally… Possibly more than one of them.”

      You believe it to be illegal, but there are three circuits that disagree. Amazing how disagreement can sometimes occur with both sides acting in good faith.

      1. You might say it’s not illegal when the president does it?

        1. I don’t understand what your reply has to do with my comment. I’m objecting to his reflexive attempt to delegitimate any position with which he disagrees. And he isn’t the only one here who does it, by a long stretch.

          1. You misunderstood. He’s not saying merely that he personally thinks it’s illegal; he’s saying that five justices do. Which kind of makes the policy illegitimate by definition.

            1. My point is that 5 justices think the policy is illegal, 5 justices think it should be permitted to continue. There are only 9 justices.

              By simple math, that means that at least one justice thinks the policy is illegal, AND thinks it should be permitted to continue. That doesn’t comport with my understanding of the role of judges. But it does comport with at least one of the ‘justice’s’ conception of his role.

              And that’s so regardless of what you or I think of the legality of the policy. One of them thinks it’s OK for an illegal policy to continue.

              1. That one Justice was Brett Kavanaugh, and he explained in a concurrence what his reason was:

                “…Because the CDC plans to end the moratorium in only a few weeks, on July 31, and because those few weeks will allow for additional and more orderly distribution of the congressionally appropriated rental assistance funds, I vote at this time to deny the application to vacate the District Court’s stay of its order.”

                He didn’t vote against vacating the stay because he doesn’t object to the government acting illegally. He had a specific reason. That’s my point, and I think that was Queen’s point also.

            2. David, we may have a different idea of what “legitimate” means in this context. But what I didn’t understand was Krayt’s comment about the President doing things.

      2. But those three circuits are subordinate to the Supreme Court, which is what Brett was referring to.

        5 Scoties wrote an opinion stating that they think the moratorium is illegal. 4 of them voted against allowing it to continue. That strongly implies that at least 1 member was fine with the government continuing activity that they themselves felt was illegal.

  3. On another note, it looks Ilya was wrong to advocate for a revocation of the CDC’s mask mandate last spring. We should have waited until at least 70% of the population was vaccinated before lifting the mask mandate.

    1. Speak for yourself, Enrique. I’m never wearing a mask again.

      1. Virus-flouting, anti-social, ignorant bigots are among my favorite culture war casualties — and the target audience of right-wing blogs operated by fake-libertarian law professors.

        (At what point would it become reasonable for society to stop offering medical resources to unvaccinated COVID victims?)

        1. I’m still waiting for actual evidence that requiring the masks actually prevented the spread of COVID. Now that we have all sorts of policies in place concerning masks, from masks still required to pretty much no one wearing them now, we should be able to establish such evidence!

      2. Then you will be kept out of certain places. If that is okay with you, fine.

    2. We are already past 80% herd immunity. What is required?

      1. For the other 20% to stop being stupid and get the goddamn vaccine.

        And we are past the point where prior infection prevents all future cases … like, seriously, if you get the flu, that doesn’t prevent you from ever getting the flu again! Covid works exactly the same way. No capable virus will evolve to die out.

        Vaccines, because they are targeted and made outside the evolutionary process, generally work better! Not perfectly, but generally! And the ones we have are insanely good.

        1. Look, I’m a big vaccine booster, and was going to get vaccinated against Covid, except that I caught it before the vaccine became available for my age range locally. Now there’s not a lot of reason for me to get vaccinated, at least until they’re distributing a Delta variant vaccine, or perhaps that combo Covid/Influenza vaccine they’re discussing. Because contrary to what you say, natural immunity actually works pretty well against Covid, certainly well enough to shift the cost-benefit balance against being vaccinated.

          And the fact is, the unvaccinated are not a significant risk to the vaccinated, because Covid has a low death rate to begin with, and even in the few cases where somebody who’s been vaccinated manages to catch Covid again anyway, they’re pretty much guaranteed a very mild case. We can detect such cases, sure, because so many people are being routinely tested that we pick up even asymptomatic cases of Covid among the vaccinated. (As we would have for other vaccines, if testing had been done on this scale.)

          So you’re demanding that the unvaccinated take that jab for THEIR sake, not the sake of others.

          And, no, you don’t get to force people to do things for their own good. Go pound sand.

          1. The rantings of chemical-addled, autistic, anti-social, backwater, right-wing America.

            Next on the playlist: ‘What’s with liberals and their damned stop signs everywhere? Jesus never said nothing about no stop signs!’

            1. I take exception to that “chemical addled”.

              And, you, especially: Go pound sand. I’ll get vaccinated when *I* think it’s the right thing to do. And you don’t get any say in the matter.

              1. You ascribed some of your substandard thinking to the effect of chemotherapy, or something similar.

                Perhaps your memory was diminished, too.

                I do not endorse mandatory vaccination. I endorse severe, sensible consequences — termination of employment, denial of access, rigorous testing requirements, financial responsibility for medical treatment — for those who reject vaccination without a damned good reason (based on reason, not superstition or ignorance).

                1. Artie, chemo knocked a few points off my IQ and left me slightly dyslexic, that’s a long ways from “addled”.

                  1. If you prefer impaired, I defer to your preference.

                    Artie was banned for poking fun at conservatives a bit too deftly for the proprietor’s liking. I am Arthur, disciple of reason and a libertarian.

                    1. No, a fascist.

                  2. I hope your health has improved and gets better, Mr. Bellmore.

                    I also hope you get vaccinated. I hope everyone (who is eligible) gets vaccinated.

                    1. I’m still wondering why we’re pushing to have people who have already had COVID to be vaccinated, when there’s no evidence that their antibodies decrease in strength over time.

                2. And Kirkland probably believes that the Jews *deserved* the Holocaust because they didn’t simply leave Europe.

                  Kirkland probably believes that being roasted alive was a “sensible consequence….”

                  1. That comment can get you fired from the Olympics in 20 or so years.

                  2. more of your irrelevancies, Ed.

          2. Brett,
            You may have seen that in fascist ruled France, people recovered from COVID get the same passes as though who have been vaccinated,

      2. 1) I doubt we are there. I know of no respected epidemiologis who would make that claim.
        2) Experimental evidence that we have “herd resistance.” Hard to get that when the infection rate is rising steeply.

        1. The case rate is rising. Is the infection rate? We don’t know, because the people being tested aren’t a representative sample of the population.

          Thus my complaint that we AREN’T doing random testing of the population, to see what’s really happening. But, I suppose it would be pointless, if policy isn’t going to be based on what’s happening anyway.

          1. “my complaint that we AREN’T doing random testing of the population, to see what’s really happening.”
            Valid point. But the case rate is the best proxy that we have.

          2. Brett,
            What we can say is that the US case increase is consistent with what is seen in the UK. And the UK does far more testing than the US.

            We have (in Sonoma) seen many cases (45) in previously vaccinated persons but most of those 45 were ansymptomatic.

    3. Let’s see you establish that the mask mandate was actually accomplishing anything.

      1. Why? So you can bitch about something else with another excuse you make up on the spot and pretend that science is wrong and Brett is right?

        Or maybe now you’re just pulling them from a bag of excuses, ready-made for those who somehow will go to the Doctor when they’re sick or injured, but simultaneously don’t actually trust them to have any idea as to what they’re talking about.

        Why not google “Did masks save lives” and read up on the hundreds of articles and studies proving that science > Brett?

        Here’s just one:
        https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2020/08/25/masks-save-lives/

        Fauci’s right: The world would’ve never eradicated polio if today’s stupidity had existed back then.

        1. I think you need to talk with Aladdin’s Carpet, get it straight whether Covid is with us forever, or is capable of being eradicated like Smallpox was, and Polio wasn’t. (It’s just well suppressed.) Because there’s a big difference between what people will tolerate to get through an emergency, and what they’ll tolerate as “the new normal”.

          Polio is a nasty disease, with much worse prognosis than Covid, and in stark contrast to Covid, particularly targets children. And much more often leaves life-long disability than it kills. Smallpox was significantly more communicable than any form of Covid, and had a death rate of 30%. Both these diseases are hideously worse than Covid, and never prompted half as radical a response.

          Covid, OTOH, has a vanishingly low death rate until you’re middle aged, (Here’s an excellent summary.) and is relatively mild compared to a lot of historical diseases, even recent ones, that didn’t prompt nearly the hysteria.

          0-17, you have an IFR of 20 deaths per million infections.
          18-49, 500 deaths per million infections
          50-64, 6,000 deaths per million infections
          65+, 90,000 deaths per million infections.

          Not remotely Smallpox bad. Until you get into the elderly, it’s barely influenza. For children, it ranks with the common cold. For the elderly, especially in states with Democratic governors, it’s the grim reaper.

          You could easily justify some pretty extreme measures in going after Smallpox, with a death rate of 30%, and no wild reservoir or fast mutation to make eradication infeasible. And yet, we never locked the world down for Smallpox.

          Extreme measures for Covid aren’t justified until people reach retirement age…

        2. “pretend that science is wrong ”
          1) it is highly unlikely that wearing masks protects the wearer? why because most people use masks incorrectly, cross-contaminating both front and back surfaces.
          2) mask do help decrease the concentration of escaping droplets (by, maybe< 90%) and aerosols by 50% to 70%.
          BUT one never actually sees such distinctions by those who plead "believe the science." That slogan is bullshit as any real scientist knows.

        3. I did your google search. Lot’s of articles no scientific papers in high impact journals. Meanwhile CDC recommends double masking. Are you doing that Jason? or does your belief in the science not stretch that far?

          FWIW: I my last plane flight, I did double mask.

          1. Shoving those goalposts hard eh genius? Now your criteria is “high-impact journals?”

            Let me guess: Too much work for you to refute the science and instead have to resort to attacking the source? I thought you were better at research than I was. Shouldn’t it be easy for you to demonstrate that?

            “Meanwhile CDC recommends double masking.” Nope, they sure don’t.

            https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/about-face-coverings.html

            Ouch. Proven to be a liar yet again. Amazing what a simple “CDC mask guidance” google search can turn up. I’m sure you already knew that though, since you’re so good at researching.

            LOL.

            1. Goalpost moving. BS.
              You read the popular press and Facebook I read journals that have well established authors. That is not moving anything. It it telling you that there are not myriad reports to substantiate your claim.
              Poor evidence is NO evidence Jason. Learn that before you lose too many cases for clients

              And as for lying Jason. improve your skills at using Google:
              “The Coronavirus Crisis:CDC Says Double-Masking Offers More Protection Against The Coronavirus, NPR report which is based on
              “Maximizing Fit for Cloth and Medical Procedure Masks to Improve Performance and Reduce SARS-CoV-2 Transmission and Exposure, 2021, CDC Weekly / February 19, 2021 / 70(7);254–257
              February 10, 202111:04 AM ET https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7007e1.htm?s_cid=mm7007e1_w
              Who is lying now? Your are just an arrogant jerk

              1. You know how a calendar works, right?

                My source is dated June 29, 2021. That’s more current than yours.

                Sure, wearing more than one mask at a time can be more effective than just one, and yet they recommend wearing “a” mask. Not two. Not seven. Not a full respirator.

                Just one.

                Btw, haven’t been on Facebook for five years. Keep swinging.

                1. And what does this tell us about the CDC that their recommendations jerk around so much? This, and considering the outright lies they admitted to, at this point why is anyone listening to the CDC on anything?

                  1. At least you try to give an honest response.
                    ” why is anyone listening to the CDC on anything?”
                    Your question is a fair one as it changes in spite of the changing statistics.

                2. another neener neener answer. You source did not account for the recent spike in infections.
                  Where do you get the nerve to call others lias when you show an arrogant disregard for the truth.
                  I have no need to read any more of the bs that you write.

                  1. So you can’t find a current source to support your claim. Got it.

                    No wonder you’re running away.

            2. Speaking of too much work, if you read the ‘improve how your mask protects you’ page linked from your citation, you would see:

              Wear a disposable mask underneath a cloth mask.
              The cloth mask should push the edges of the disposable mask against your face.

              Science is a methodology, not a religion. Search engine results that provide biased articles and ‘studies’ don’t prove much when the search engine you refer to intentionally suppresses results that question the dominant viewpoint. To finish, the only person that has shifted a goalpost is you, and in typical sophist fashion, you claim others are guilty of your actions.

            3. Jason,
              I suggest that you hold your breath while you wait.
              Meanwhile, you squirm with irrelevancies and refuse to answer my simple question;
              What financial data did renters have to provide when they made their declaration while having an overwhelming conflict of interest?
              Man up (or woman up if you are gender fluid) and answer the question, instead of hiding behind an impossible demand

  4. Hopefully we’ve all learned from this so that during the next plague evictions can be done swiftly, and those rental units can remain largely vacant during the course of said next plague.

    Arizona Justice Courts are currently loaded to the gills with previously backlogged eviction actions. Normally, the Justice Court Docket is about 70% debt buyer cases, 15% traffic cases, and 15% evictions.

    Currently, the docket is 70% evictions, 25% traffic, and maybe 5% debt buyer cases.

    This all could have been avoided if all of those evictions could have been allowed to proceed during the plague.

    1. If the evictions could have been allowed, most of those tenants would have paid their rent, and there wouldn’t have been an eviction.

      1. So “most” of the affected tenants committed perjury?

        Please grace us with yet another argument you’ve just pulled out of your asshole.

        1. No, dumbass, it never would have gotten to court in the first place.

          1. In the real world, those tenants who were not evicted because of the CDC’s policy had to swear under penalty of perjury that they couldn’t pay rent.

            Those who did not swear to such a statement were still eligible to be evicted this entire time.

            Brett’s assertion, is that most of those who were saved by the CDC policy actually would have just paid their rent for fear of eviction.

            Meaning the only reason they were not evicted, since they would have otherwise been eligible for such action, is that they had to commit perjury and pretend they couldn’t afford rent to be shielded by the CDC policy.

            Class dismissed.

            1. Yes, that IS my assertion: That a large proportion of those taking advantage of the eviction moratorium will be found to have committed perjury. And this somehow won’t be prosecuted.

              1. Many will then file bankruptcy and the landlord will still not get the rent to pay the mortgage.

                1. makes sense.
                  If they could not pay $2000 in September 2020, they sure are not going to be able to pay $24,000 this September

                  1. Heck, even if they could have paid $2000 in September, that doesn’t mean they’d be able to pay $24,00 a year later. It’s not like somebody who’s going to refuse to pay the rent is going to sock the money away in a mutual fund.

              2. “And this somehow won’t be prosecuted.”
                Good assumption.

        2. Jason,
          Only a fool would believe that the majority of tenants, now a year in arrears, will ever pay their rent. This “moratorium” is a de factor taking from landlords.

          1. Where did I say that they are going to pay back-rent?

            I challenged Brett’s claim that the majority of them committed perjury.

            Since you like to read between the lines and conjure up fantasy arguments to attribute to others: No, I don’t support the CDC policy in any manner, and believe it was unconstitutional from the start.

            1. Get real, Jason.
              You did not say they would ever pay… and that is the point.
              They committed perjury knowing that there would never be a reckoning in any way shape or form. At most they’d have to declare bankruptcy, screwing even more people.

              1. Actually the point is that Brett (and now you) allege without evidence that the majority (unless you’d like to specify a different number) committed perjury.

                Whether they someday pay back the owed rent has nothing to do with that allegation, and therefore is not, in fact, “the point.”

                You know who did commit perjury and got away with it in recent history? James Clapper and Wilbur Ross. Maybe we should start by holding the aristocracy accountable for their crimes, and then we can worry about your predictions.

                1. Skip the whatabboutisms.
                  It was too easy for renters to tell a sob story and a white lie. Why do you believe these folks? did they have to submit pay stubs and bank statements? I doubt it but I’d be welcome to see proof to the contrary.
                  Until then you provide the proof, I am cynical and you’re a sucker.

                  1. *I* have to provide proof that millions of people didn’t commit perjury? You’re the ones making the assertion that they did, and you really ought to know by now that the one making the claim is the one with the burden of proof.

                    So get to it. Surprise us with your ability to research and provide evidence for your claims. You might want to start with reading the law itself, since you seem to have some ignorance on the matter.

                    I’ll wait.

                    1. Jason,
                      You have no evidence that people who have every reason to lie don’t exaggerate telling themselves that they are not lying. You provide no evidence that these people had to provide ANY financial evidence whatso ever.
                      I am a far better researcher than you, but I don’t fall for your bogus baiting.
                      Your politics makes you blind. This was just Trump’s and now Biden’s way to buy votes.

                    2. By the way Jason,
                      Try learning something about the definition of conflicts of interest. Every renter who got a pass has one.
                      Why don’t you try to be honest and advocate that they provide financial records to the appropriate authorities.

                    3. “I am a far better researcher than you, but I don’t fall for your bogus baiting.”

                      Evidently not, because you’ve provided no evidence for your claim whatsoever.

                      That means I don’t need to go look for anything to prove you wrong, since you haven’t bothered to prove you’re right in the first place.

                      Still waiting.

                    4. Hold your breath while you’re waiting.
                      You just refuse to answer a simple question:
                      What financial data did people have to make when they signed a paper making a claim in which they have a very strong conflict?
                      Man up and get to it.

                    5. You seem to be mightily struggling with a very simple concept Don:

                      You and Brett have no evidence to support your claim that most of the tenants involved in this process committed perjury.

                      If you’d like to acknowledge that you have no evidence of this, that’s certainly reasonable. Then perhaps we can discuss the questions you’re using to deflect attention from that fact.

                    6. I am not struggling at all Jason. Howdare you cary on with your mind raping
                      Instead you have no ability and in fact even refuse to discuss your ability to answer a simple question.
                      I’ll it repeat for you.
                      What financial evidence did the tenants have to provide to prove their financial inability to pay?
                      They had a gross conflict of interest and I just don’t believe their declaration without substantiating financial information.
                      If you cannot answer the question, you’re not worth listening to.

                    7. I’ll repeat myself one last time before muting you:

                      “You and Brett have no evidence to support your claim that most of the tenants involved in this process committed perjury.

                      If you’d like to acknowledge that you have no evidence of this, that’s certainly reasonable. Then perhaps we can discuss the questions you’re using to deflect attention from that fact.”

                      I’d bother answering your question if it wasn’t a lame attempt to avoid admitting that you don’t have evidence for your belief.

                      So don’t get all pissy with me just because you can’t support your argument with evidence of any kind.

                      Take a nap and change your diaper, and next time provide evidence when challenged instead of trying to deflect.

    2. I have an issue with debt buyer cases — I think, at the least, the filing fees ought to be a LOT higher…

    3. The amazing thing is that this attempt at vote-buying (election fraud) started under the Orange Clown and has continued under the 79-year-old wonder.

  5. Isn’t this actually a violation of the Equal protection clause, in that a specific group, landlords, have been singled out as having their admitted legal rights be unenforceable?

    1. No. It is not actually a violation of the Equal protection clause, or of the due process clause, for the specific group of landlords to be singled out as not having an unlimited right to evict the specific group of tenants, who also have legal property rights.

      1. ” the specific group of tenants, who also have legal property rights.”

        That’s exactly what they don’t have, if they fail to pay the rent.

        1. Well, is the alternative of mob closure of courts better?

          We clearly don’t have the guts as a society to stand up to BLM violence, and were BLM to shout down courts the way that Daniel Shays did, what then????

          Even if the courts were re-opened, a few hundred BLM thugs on the Judge’s front lawn after midnight would sorta make that moot….

          The precedent of BLM extends way beyond BLM and is scary….

            1. Off the rails, I’d say.

              Can we just agree that Dr. Ed is not all there – he’s two tacos shy of a combination plate if you like – and not respond?

              Hard to do, I know, since I do sometimes respond, but the guy is a nut.

              1. Bernard,
                I am going to try to be kind to Ed and therefore not agree with you.
                But…

      2. “not having an unlimited right”
        where ever did you get any idea about an “unlimited right” when the tenants have signed a rental agreement to pay or get evicted?

  6. The solution is incredibly simple. Those who believe that the policy is good should have their wages and bank accounts levied to pay the rent owed to the landlords.

    1. They actually will be by the time this all gets sorted out.

      Whom do you think bailed out Fannie Mae the last time?

      A lot of landlords are going to go into bankruptcy, some because of necessity and some tactically, and the taxpayer is going to wind up holding the bill….

      And whom do you think that is???

      1. I doubt the taxpayer will bail out the landlords. Much more likely the bank will seize the properties and sell them to another owner, possibly an entity owned by at lease some of the original landlords.

        1. If they’d had any intention of bailing out the landlords, they’d have done it already. Instead they passed a law giving the rent assistance checks to the tenants.

          The blunt political fact is that the landlords are few, the tenants many, and once a democracy gives up on enforcing legal rights, that’s all that matters.

          I expect that at some point there’s going to be a reckoning, and a lot of apartments will become condos. And rent will go up drastically to compensate for the risk of this sort of thing.

          1. “at some point there’s going to be a reckoning, and a lot of apartments will become condos.”

            we see that in California already.

  7. I understand that this is important as a liberty interest, but it is also endemic on why the right loses gradual ground in pretty much every legal fight. Look at all the resources dumped into litigating something that is temporary and now set to expire. I’m sure the “we can’t let it happen again” excuse is prevalent, but come on….

    1. But, you can’t litigate it until they actually DO it, and there are a near infinite number of violations they can temporarily engage in, then back off of when litigation begins.

      The fundamental problem is really just the political culture, the culture of the largely self-perpetuating group who now run our governments, having largely given up on the idea of rights. A large faction of the public still wants their rights vindicated, but the people running the government don’t care, and so the judges they select don’t care.

Please to post comments