With over 6 million households in the U.S. still in arrears on their rents, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has just extended the federal moratorium on evictions, which was slated to expire at the end of this month, through July 31, 2021, noting that this is intended to be the final extension of the moratorium.
Keep in mind that the federal moratorium doesn’t apply to individuals that earned more than $99,000 in 2020, or expects to earn more than $99,000 in 2021, a threshold which is increased to $198,000 for households that file a joint tax return.
California’s eviction moratorium is currently slated to expire on June 30, 2021.
UPDATE (6/25): California has followed suit and extended its moratorium on evictions through the end of September.
UPDATE (6/29): The U.S. Supreme Court has just denied an application to block the extension of the Federal eviction moratorium, as requested by the Alabama Association of Realtors.
Honest question – why/how does the CDC have jurisdiction over eviction policy? Any more than HUD has a say on mask guidance.
As a public health measure directed at helping to minimize the spread of COVID-19, enabling people to quarantine, if necessary, and minimizing moves into shared housing, shelters or other congregate settings (which increase the risk of transmission and continued spread).
That logic, of course, could give the CDC complete control over the entire economy under the guise of minimizing the spread of COVID-19. Which was something that Congress never intended and would not be constitutional.
UPDATE: The U.S. Supreme Court has denied an application to block the extension of the Federal eviction moratorium, as sought by the Alabama Association of Realtors.
It should be pointed out that Kavanaugh’s crucial 5th vote denying the application to block the extension actually agreed that the CDC exceeded it’s authority, but reasoned that the moratorium will expire shortly anyway. In his own words:
“”I agree with the District Court and the applicants that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exceeded its existing statutory authority by issuing a nationwide eviction moratorium,” 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….In my view, clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July 31.”
So it seems that the federal eviction moratorium can’t be further extended without congressional approval.
Points for attention to detail, but…demerits for maybe not enough: wouldn’t further extension(objection)s have to be litigated? and the Court will soon be in Recess until Oct, anyway, so “crucial” is a transitory term, indeed.
As they say, I’m not a lawyer. But my casual read of this 1 paragraph opinion has plain language that indicates that Kavanaugh believes the CDC has exceeded its authority. Additionally, if I understand correctly, a lower court already ruled against the CDC, but stayed its ruling. This is 180 from many of the news reports I read which read as if the Supreme Court validated the CDC’s position.
I suppose that it’s possible that the CDC could extend the moratorium and re-litigate. But given how clear the language in this ruling is, and that a lower court already ruled against them, I don’t know if that is very likely.
Nor am I (and it shows !! 🙁 )
I def agree with you as to the holding, but my point was that SHOULD the CDC extend it, the legal options to oppose such extension would be murkier (the theory being that the extension would be a new action that would need to be [re]litigated, and the Supremes wouldn’t be in session…negating Kavanaugh’s views).
Of course I ignored: (1) such an extension would likely – and quickly – meet with the same legal opprobrium as its predecessor, and (2) the absence of SC review would uphold the lower court views. Right?
“Statement of Intent…to achieve the following objectives
-Mitigating the spread of COVID-19 within crowded, congregate or shared living settings or thru unsheltered homelessness
-Mitigating the further spread of COVID-19 from one state or territory into any other ..
-Mitigating…by temporarily suspending the eviction of covered persons from residential property…”
So it’s under their broad public health authority.
And when back injuries arise from s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g an idea so much I guess they’ll have a say in that too ! 🙂
Do either the California or the San Francisco moratoriums have limitations on tenant income, like the federal moratorium does? If so, how do they calculate “income” for a joint tenancy of more than 1 individual? (i.e. – roommates).
As long as Newson comes through in a timely way on his stated intention to make whole 100% rent unpaid due to COVID, a ban on evictions seems fine.
Newsoms plan pays tenants, no guarantee that flows to landlords? Oh the fraudsters will be lining up
No, checks are written to the landlords.
Newsoms plan pays tenants, no guarantee that flows to landlords? Oh the fraudsters will be lining up
UPDATE: California has followed suit and extended its moratorium on evictions through the end of September.
As a reminder, while the federal eviction moratorium is currently slated to expire tomorrow, July 31, California’s eviction moratorium was extended through the end of September.