Supreme Court blocks part of New York's eviction moratorium

[NewYorkExpress]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/12/us/politics/supreme-court-new-york-eviction-moratorium.html

The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked part of an eviction moratorium in New York State that had been imposed in response to the coronavirus pandemic, a move the law’s supporters said might expose thousands to eviction.

“This is a very serious setback for our ability to protect tenants in the middle of a pandemic,” said State Senator Brian Kavanagh, a Democrat and one of the sponsors of the moratorium law.

Randy M. Mastro, a lawyer for the landlords who had challenged the law, said the court’s decision would permit “cases that have been stopped in their tracks by the state moratorium law to proceed so that both landlords and tenants can be heard.”

Still, the court’s order, which was unsigned, stressed that it applied only to a provision that bars the eviction of tenants who file a form saying they have suffered economic setbacks as a result of the pandemic, rather than providing evidence in court. “This scheme violates the court’s longstanding teaching that ordinarily ‘no man can be a judge in his own case,’” the majority wrote.

Here's the opinion.

While the opinion was unsigned, we may have enough clues to figure out who wrote it. Judging by the fact it only struck down part of the opinion, I think it was Roberts.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Thank you SCOTUS.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Optimates gonna Optimate.

[President Johnson]

Looks like the incoming governor wants to work on the issue after that ruling:

https://twitter.com/LtGovHochulNY/status/1425999586603188228

[brucejoel99]

Perhaps I'm alone here, but I don't see that big of a, if any problem with this ruling. One shouldn't be benefiting from a program designed to grant relief for a specified class of individuals without being able to demonstrate that they're an individual member of that class. In any event, this tells us nothing about Biden's modified eviction moratorium, given that this ruling only pertained to that provision of the state law that permitted tenants to self-certify their hardship status.

[I’m not Stu]

5-4 with Roberts dissenting?

[Skill and Chance]

5-4 with Roberts dissenting?

Roberts didn't write a dissent, but the 3 Dem appointees did, so it was most likely 6/3.  Roberts has written dissents in other COVID emergency order cases that came to SCOTUS for stays post-Barrett, so the fact that he didn't this time suggests he agrees with it.

[I’m not Stu]

5-4 with Roberts dissenting?

Roberts didn't write a dissent, but the 3 Dem appointees did, so it was most likely 6/3.  Roberts has written dissents in other COVID emergency order cases that came to SCOTUS for stays post-Barrett, so the fact that he didn't this time suggests he agrees with it.

I know that. I have a feeling that he might have decided to secretly dissent so that casual observers wouldn’t be outraged by another obvious partisan 5-4 decision.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

5-4 with Roberts dissenting?

Roberts didn't write a dissent, but the 3 Dem appointees did, so it was most likely 6/3.  Roberts has written dissents in other COVID emergency order cases that came to SCOTUS for stays post-Barrett, so the fact that he didn't this time suggests he agrees with it.

I know that. I have a feeling that he might have decided to secretly dissent so that casual observers wouldn’t be outraged by another obvious partisan 5-4 decision.

6-3 decisions are even more obviously partisan.

[I’m not Stu]

5-4 with Roberts dissenting?

Roberts didn't write a dissent, but the 3 Dem appointees did, so it was most likely 6/3.  Roberts has written dissents in other COVID emergency order cases that came to SCOTUS for stays post-Barrett, so the fact that he didn't this time suggests he agrees with it.

I know that. I have a feeling that he might have decided to secretly dissent so that casual observers wouldn’t be outraged by another obvious partisan 5-4 decision.

6-3 decisions are even more obviously partisan.

5-4 looks worse than a party-line vote because it shows that it is so extreme that conservative John Roberts finds it too extreme.

[Sestak]

I don't know where you are getting the notion that John Roberts of all people would be a vote to uphold eviction moratoria.

[brucejoel99]

I don't know where you are getting the notion that John Roberts of all people would be a vote to uphold eviction moratoria.

He upheld the federal moratorium in Jun. without even going so far as to join Kavanaugh's concurrence.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

“This is a very serious setback for our ability to protect tenants in the middle of a pandemic,” said State Senator Brian Kavanagh, a Democrat and one of the sponsors of the moratorium law.

That's uh.. hm.