In A Decision Widely Hinted At, Previously -- The Supremes End Moratorium On Evictions...

Back in June (as we explained) Kavanaugh's opinion actually held that the CDC needed new Congressional authority to continue the federal level, nation wide eviction bans, due to the pandemic. Regardless, he and his conservative colleagues allowed it to continue primarily since it was to expire this month. But with the extension, it was clear the Supremes were going to strike it -- unless Congress acted. Congress. . . as we know, did not.

This decision does not end any local city, county or state level eviction bans. The states are free to keep theirs, and my city, and Cook County very likely will. Get up to date on your own city council's actions, over the last two years. In any event, here's the order:

. . .JUSTICE KAVANAUGH concurred, explaining that he agreed with the District Court that the CDC’s moratorium exceeded its statutory authority. But because the CDC planned to end the moratorium in only a few weeks, and because that time would allow for additional and more orderly distribution of congressionally appropriated rental assistance funds, he concluded that the balance of equities justified leaving the stay in place. JUSTICE THOMAS, JUSTICE ALITO, JUSTICE GORSUCH, and JUSTICE BARRETT noted that they would vacate the stay.

The moratorium expired on July 31, 2021. Three days later, the CDC reimposed it. See 86 Fed. Reg. 43244. Apart from slightly narrowing the geographic scope, the new moratorium is indistinguishable from the old. . . .

I think it wise as a policy matter, not to try to move sick families during a public health emergency. And I do think the CDC has broad powers to ameliorate public health emergencies. [As a side note, it is clear that conservatives did NOT find a guy who simply applies the law as written, when they picked Kavanaugh. He here shows himself to be the worst sort of pragmatist -- which in fact makes him. . . unpredictable -- and that alone should frighten the hard-right, quite a bit, when it comes to personal liberty questions. Charming. They bought it, though -- to be certain.]

That said, there is no "unlimited in duration" authority, to act (at the federal level, at least) without new legislation being passed (afterall, landlords do have property rights, too). Two years is likely the zenith of what this court will "look the other way" on. Onward. . . smiling in spite of myself. . . .

नमस्ते