SCOTUS Blocks Eviction Moratorium

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

Supreme Court blocked Eviction Moratorium 6-3. Says congress must Act for new moratorium.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

So they affirmed their previous ruling that the Biden administration basically announced they were ignoring. Not a surprise.

[Xeuma]

The fact this wasn't 9-0 is deeply disturbing. I am rather surprised any self-respecting jurist would put their name on that dissent.

[Donerail]

I always find it deeply disturbing whenever the Supreme Court does anything that's not a 9-0 decision that I personally agree with

[Xeuma]

I always find it deeply disturbing whenever the Supreme Court does anything that's not a 9-0 decision that I personally agree with

The judicial reasoning of the dissent is, at best, non-existent. Yes, it is deeply disturbing that these three justices seem to believe the law does not apply when the President's political agenda really, really doesn't want it to.

[brucejoel99]

It's not unreasonable for a jurist to believe that the CDC was provided with an intelligible principle by Congress to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. You can disagree with such a position in good-faith, but such disagreement doesn't automatically render said position to the outside of the legal mainstream, & it's ludicrous to believe that it somehow does.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Good decision. 

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Thank the Almighty Lord.

[lfromnj]

I always find it deeply disturbing whenever the Supreme Court does anything that's not a 9-0 decision that I personally agree with

The judicial reasoning of the dissent is, at best, non-existent. Yes, it is deeply disturbing that these three justices seem to believe the law does not apply when the President's political agenda really, really doesn't want it to.

My opinion will not surprise anyone, but having read the dissent, I agree that it is not just wrong but embarrassing. Some of the hits:

• Removing the stay, we are told, will cause "incomparable harm." Incomparable! Why even bother with the numbers that follow at that point?
• Their ostensible reading of the Public Health Service Act could justify virtually anything: "The statute’s first sentence grants the CDC authority to design measures that, in the agency’s judgment, are essential  to  contain disease  outbreaks."
• "The CDC’s current order is substantially more tailored than its prior eviction moratorium, which automatically applied nationwide." Yes, it just happens to cover virtually the entire country.
• "When Congress enacted §361(a),  public  health  agencies  intervened  in  the  housing  market by regulation, including eviction moratoria, to contain infection by preventing the movement of people." Preventing the eviction of infected people for weeks is not comparable to preventing the eviction of anyone for going on well over a year.
• The dissent insists that landlords have the option of evicting tenants who do not meet the attestation requirements for financial hardship, etc., ignoring the practical reality that getting an eviction on these terms is virtually impossible regardless of the tenant's health, employment, and income status.

Definitely something that I'll remember the next time someone insists that I must vote for a Democrat for federal office for the sake of getting more people like this appointed.

“The Surgeon General, with the approval of the [Secretary of Health and Human Services], is authorized to
make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment
are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign
countries into the States or possessions, or from one
State or possession into any other State or possession.
For purposes of carrying out and enforcing such regulations, the Surgeon General may provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to
be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures,
as in his judgment may be necessary.”

Here's the specific line by the way that was being used.
Interesting to note SCOTUS cited this decision
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretto_v._Teleprompter_Manhattan_CATV_Corp.

This decision resulted in the idea that a permanent physical presence constituted a taking. Although this wasn't permanent it was fairly extreme.

[brucejoel99]

So they affirmed their previous ruling that the Biden administration basically announced they were ignoring. Not a surprise.

Technically, they merely elevated Kavanaugh's non-precedential concurrence into a precedent after the Biden administration had basically said they were gonna be disregarding it 'til a majority of the Court elevated it as such, which is - generally speaking, anyway - how the nature of concurring opinions is supposed to work. Still, obviously not a surprise.

[lfromnj]

I do wonder if Roberts and Kavanaugh will be more aggressive against the Biden administration after this stunt to squeeze 20 more days.

[Antonio the Sixth]

A despicable ruling from a sociopathic Court.

No, the eviction moratorium can't stay in place forever, but it MUST stay in place as long as it takes for rent relief to clear out any and all outstanding rent accrued over the past year and a half. No one must be losing their home because of COVID. The federal and state governments have the means to prevent that, and the fact that they haven't dedicated all their resources to do so (and worse yet, that an unelected branch has taken it upon itself to actively undermine this effort) speaks to a moral rot at the core of this country.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

A despicable ruling from a sociopathic Court.

No, the eviction moratorium can't stay in place forever, but it MUST stay in place as long as it takes for rent relief to clear out any and all outstanding rent accrued over the past year and a half. No one must be losing their home because of COVID. The federal and state governments have the means to prevent that, and the fact that they haven't dedicated all their resources to do so (and worse yet, that an unelected branch has taken it upon itself to actively undermine this effort) speaks to a moral rot at the core of this country.

Lol it's been 13 mnths just like Unemployment since the Cares Act, I am not sobbing in my boots over this, 13 MNTHS

This is the same Crt that gave Biden the Election and certified Obamacare, it's not a Liberal Crt

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A despicable ruling from a sociopathic Court.

No, the eviction moratorium can't stay in place forever, but it MUST stay in place as long as it takes for rent relief to clear out any and all outstanding rent accrued over the past year and a half. No one must be losing their home because of COVID. The federal and state governments have the means to prevent that, and the fact that they haven't dedicated all their resources to do so (and worse yet, that an unelected branch has taken it upon itself to actively undermine this effort) speaks to a moral rot at the core of this country.

Apparently you suffer from the common delusion that good laws must be Constitutional laws and vice versa. While ideally that would be the case, it isn't always so.

[lfromnj]

A despicable ruling from a sociopathic Court.

No, the eviction moratorium can't stay in place forever, but it MUST stay in place as long as it takes for rent relief to clear out any and all outstanding rent accrued over the past year and a half. No one must be losing their home because of COVID. The federal and state governments have the means to prevent that, and the fact that they haven't dedicated all their resources to do so (and worse yet, that an unelected branch has taken it upon itself to actively undermine this effort) speaks to a moral rot at the core of this country.

Apparently you suffer from the common delusion that good laws must be Constitutional laws and vice versa. While ideally that would be the case, it isn't always so.

No in defense of Tony he himself has been fairly lukewarm on Roe v Wade despite being Pro Choice.

[Antonio the Sixth]

A despicable ruling from a sociopathic Court.

No, the eviction moratorium can't stay in place forever, but it MUST stay in place as long as it takes for rent relief to clear out any and all outstanding rent accrued over the past year and a half. No one must be losing their home because of COVID. The federal and state governments have the means to prevent that, and the fact that they haven't dedicated all their resources to do so (and worse yet, that an unelected branch has taken it upon itself to actively undermine this effort) speaks to a moral rot at the core of this country.

Apparently you suffer from the common delusion that good laws must be Constitutional laws and vice versa. While ideally that would be the case, it isn't always so.

No in defense of Tony he himself has been fairly lukewarm on Roe v Wade despite being Pro Choice.

Yeah, I tend to err on the side of judicial deference when there's no blatant constitutional violation at play, and I certainly don't believe there is one right now (I also don't believe substantive due process as a legal doctrine makes any sense, so that's my answer to Dule's point).

Also, the Court was willing to give a LOT of latitude to the previous administration as far as emergency powers went, so I don't see why it should be different in this one.

Also, the use of the shadow docket to make substantive policy pronouncements, as opposed to the temporary relief it was supposed to be for, is itself an abuse of power on the part of the Court and needs to be curbed.

[lfromnj]

A despicable ruling from a sociopathic Court.

No, the eviction moratorium can't stay in place forever, but it MUST stay in place as long as it takes for rent relief to clear out any and all outstanding rent accrued over the past year and a half. No one must be losing their home because of COVID. The federal and state governments have the means to prevent that, and the fact that they haven't dedicated all their resources to do so (and worse yet, that an unelected branch has taken it upon itself to actively undermine this effort) speaks to a moral rot at the core of this country.

Apparently you suffer from the common delusion that good laws must be Constitutional laws and vice versa. While ideally that would be the case, it isn't always so.

No in defense of Tony he himself has been fairly lukewarm on Roe v Wade despite being Pro Choice.

Yeah, I tend to err on the side of judicial deference when there's no blatant constitutional violation at play, and I certainly don't believe there is one right now (I also don't believe substantive due process as a legal doctrine makes any sense, so that's my answer to Dule's point).

Also, the Court was willing to give a LOT of latitude to the previous administration as far as emergency powers went, so I don't see why it should be different in this one.

Also, the use of the shadow docket to make substantive policy pronouncements, as opposed to the temporary relief it was supposed to be for, is itself an abuse of power on the part of the Court and needs to be curbed.[/b]

I mean I would like to mention this policy was a Trump admin policy originally.

[Antonio the Sixth]

A despicable ruling from a sociopathic Court.

No, the eviction moratorium can't stay in place forever, but it MUST stay in place as long as it takes for rent relief to clear out any and all outstanding rent accrued over the past year and a half. No one must be losing their home because of COVID. The federal and state governments have the means to prevent that, and the fact that they haven't dedicated all their resources to do so (and worse yet, that an unelected branch has taken it upon itself to actively undermine this effort) speaks to a moral rot at the core of this country.

Apparently you suffer from the common delusion that good laws must be Constitutional laws and vice versa. While ideally that would be the case, it isn't always so.

No in defense of Tony he himself has been fairly lukewarm on Roe v Wade despite being Pro Choice.

Yeah, I tend to err on the side of judicial deference when there's no blatant constitutional violation at play, and I certainly don't believe there is one right now (I also don't believe substantive due process as a legal doctrine makes any sense, so that's my answer to Dule's point).

Also, the Court was willing to give a LOT of latitude to the previous administration as far as emergency powers went, so I don't see why it should be different in this one.

Also, the use of the shadow docket to make substantive policy pronouncements, as opposed to the temporary relief it was supposed to be for, is itself an abuse of power on the part of the Court and needs to be curbed.[/b]

I mean I would like to mention this policy was a Trump admin policy originally.

I think what happened with the evictions moratorium is that it was originally established by law (in the original 2019 stimulus bill) then expired but was extended by executive order. I do agree that it would be preferable for the moratorium to be enshrined into law (then there would be no doubt as to its constitutionality), but obviously that would need to get through a filibuster. Either way, though, it is telling that the moratorium is being struck down now that it's creating a political headache for the Democratic president rather than the Republican one.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

A despicable ruling from a sociopathic Court.

No, the eviction moratorium can't stay in place forever, but it MUST stay in place as long as it takes for rent relief to clear out any and all outstanding rent accrued over the past year and a half. No one must be losing their home because of COVID. The federal and state governments have the means to prevent that, and the fact that they haven't dedicated all their resources to do so (and worse yet, that an unelected branch has taken it upon itself to actively undermine this effort) speaks to a moral rot at the core of this country.

Apparently you suffer from the common delusion that good laws must be Constitutional laws and vice versa. While ideally that would be the case, it isn't always so.

No in defense of Tony he himself has been fairly lukewarm on Roe v Wade despite being Pro Choice.

Roe, unlike dissenting against a recently established precedent on the basis that the executive branch has powers that it just *doesn't*, actually has judicial merit.