Alabama Assn. of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Servs.
594 U. S. ____ (2021) (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) lacks statutory authority under §361(a) of the Public Health Service Act to impose a nationwide eviction moratorium, as Congress must speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance that intrude into areas of state law.
Facts:
- In March 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which included a 120-day eviction moratorium for properties participating in federal assistance programs or subject to federally backed loans.
- When the CARES Act's eviction moratorium expired in July 2020, Congress did not renew it.
- The CDC then issued its own new, administratively imposed nationwide eviction moratorium, effective September 2020, covering all residential properties and imposing criminal penalties on violators.
- Congress extended the CDC's moratorium for one month as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, but did not further renew it.
- The CDC subsequently extended its moratorium multiple times on its own authority through March, June, and July 2021.
- On July 31, 2021, the CDC's moratorium expired.
- Three days later, the CDC reimposed its moratorium, which was largely indistinguishable from the prior one apart from a slightly narrowed geographic scope.
- The CDC relied on §361(a) of the Public Health Service Act, originally passed in 1944, as its authority for promulgating and extending the eviction moratorium.
Procedural Posture:
- Realtor associations and rental property managers in Alabama and Georgia (the applicants) sued the Department of Health and Human Services and the CDC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking to enjoin the CDC's moratorium.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, holding that the CDC lacked statutory authority to impose the moratorium.
- The District Court stayed its order pending appeal, reasoning that even without a substantial likelihood of success, the Government made a lesser showing of a “serious legal question on the merits,” which warranted a stay when other factors weighed in its favor.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed with the District Court's decision to maintain the stay.
- The Supreme Court declined to vacate the stay in a previous application (No. 20A169), with Justice Kavanaugh concurring that the CDC's moratorium exceeded its statutory authority but finding the balance of equities justified leaving the stay in place due to its imminent expiration and to allow for distribution of rental assistance funds.
- After the CDC reimposed the moratorium in August 2021, the plaintiffs returned to the District Court to seek vacatur of its stay.
- The District Court agreed that the stay was no longer warranted on the merits and equities but concluded it was bound by the “law of the case” in light of the D.C. Circuit’s earlier decision not to vacate the stay.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit again declined to lift the stay.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does §361(a) of the Public Health Service Act grant the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) the authority to impose a nationwide moratorium on evictions to prevent the interstate spread of communicable diseases?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the CDC's nationwide eviction moratorium exceeds its authority under §361(a) of the Public Health Service Act, and the stay on the District Court's judgment vacating the moratorium should be lifted. The Court finds that the applicants are virtually certain to succeed on the merits of their argument. The Court interprets §361(a)'s first sentence, which broadly grants authority to make regulations necessary to prevent disease spread, in conjunction with the second sentence, which illustrates the kinds of measures authorized: "inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles...and other measures." These illustrative measures directly target the disease itself. An eviction moratorium, in contrast, relates to interstate infection far more indirectly, based on a "downstream connection" between eviction, tenant movement, and potential COVID-19 transmission, which "strains credulity." Even if the text were ambiguous, the Court applies the major questions doctrine, noting that Congress must "speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of 'vast economic and political significance.'" The CDC's moratorium impacts millions of tenants, has significant economic consequences (approximated by nearly $50 billion in rental assistance), and intrudes into the traditional domain of state law concerning landlord-tenant relationships. Such a significant alteration of federal-state power and private property rights requires "exceedingly clear language" from Congress. The Court observes that this use of §361(a) is unprecedented since its enactment in 1944, particularly with the imposition of criminal penalties. Furthermore, the equities do not justify maintaining the stay, as landlords face irreparable harm by being deprived of rent payments and their right to exclude, while the Government's interest in maintaining the moratorium has diminished due to the time available for distributing rental assistance. The Court emphasizes that "our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends," asserting that it is Congress's role to authorize such action.
Dissenting - Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan
No, the lower courts did not clearly and demonstrably err in maintaining the stay on the District Court's judgment, and the Supreme Court should not block the CDC's order in an emergency proceeding without full briefing or argument. Justice Breyer argues that it is "far from 'demonstrably' clear" that the CDC lacks the power to issue its modified moratorium order. He highlights that the current order is more tailored than its predecessor, applying only to high-transmission counties and requiring specific declarations of financial and housing need from tenants, with landlords able to challenge these declarations. He interprets §361(a)'s first sentence as a broad grant of authority to design measures necessary to contain disease outbreaks, noting historical instances where public health agencies intervened in housing, including eviction moratoria, to prevent the movement of people and contain infection. He views the second sentence as expanding the agency's powers by authorizing action on personal property or emphasizing enforcement, rather than narrowing the broad authority granted by the first sentence, citing legislative history. Justice Breyer also points to a split among lower courts on this question, suggesting the Government's interpretation is not "demonstrably wrong." Regarding the balance of equities, he acknowledges landlord injury but argues it is lessened by tenant obligations for partial rent payments and Congress's appropriation of over $46.5 billion in rental assistance. He contrasts this with the "irreparable harm from vacating the stay," citing skyrocketing COVID-19 transmission rates, the highly contagious Delta variant, and the CDC's projection of mass evictions leading to increased disease spread, illness, and deaths, particularly among those with no other housing options. He concludes that the public interest "strongly favors respecting the CDC’s judgment" at a time when over 90% of counties are experiencing high transmission rates, emphasizing the need for considered decision-making, not a summary proceeding, given the impact on millions.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the "major questions doctrine," indicating that courts will expect "exceedingly clear language" from Congress when an administrative agency attempts to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance or intrude upon traditional state authority. The per curiam opinion highlights judicial skepticism towards broad agency interpretations of older statutes to address novel crises without explicit congressional action, potentially limiting the executive branch's emergency powers. It underscores the separation of powers, reasserting Congress's primary role in defining the scope of federal intervention in areas like landlord-tenant relations. Future cases involving agency action impacting significant economic sectors or traditional state domains will likely face heightened scrutiny regarding specific congressional authorization.
