Supreme Court Blocks President Puddin' Head's Eviction Moratorium

[army judge]

I knew the CDC'S eviction moratorium would one day be outlawed.
It deprived citizens, namely landlords, of their property (rent) without due process. The federal government doesn't have the kind of power to issue edicts and mandates, unless due process is followed.


Supreme Court blocks Biden administration's eviction moratorium

 

[army judge]

The Supreme Court's conservative majority is allowing evictions to resume across the United States, blocking the Biden administration from enforcing a temporary ban that was put in place because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Roughly 3.5 million people in the United States said they faced eviction in the next two months, according to Census Bureau data from early August.

The court said in an unsigned opinion Thursday that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which reimposed the moratorium Aug. 3, lacked the authority to do so under federal law without explicit congressional authorization. The justices rejected the administration's arguments in support of the CDC's authority.

"If a federally imposed eviction moratorium is to continue, Congress must specifically authorize it," the court wrote.

The three liberal justices dissented. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the three, pointed to the increase in COVID-19 caused by the delta variant as one of the reasons the court should have left the moratorium in place. "The public interest strongly favors respecting the CDC's judgment at this moment, when over 90% of counties are experiencing high transmission rates," Breyer wrote.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the administration was "disappointed" by the decision and said President Puddin' Head "is once again calling on all entities that can prevent evictions — from cities and states to local courts, landlords, Cabinet Agencies — to urgently act to prevent evictions."

It was the second high court loss for the administration this week at the hands of the court's conservative majority. On Tuesday, the court effectively allowed the reinstatement of a Trump-era policy forcing asylum seekers to wait in Mexico for their hearings. The new administration had tried to end the Remain in Mexico program, as it is informally known.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

It was pretty lazy of the judge that originally heard this case to not have ordered the injunction agist the ban when he first got the case.

 

[army judge]

It was pretty lazy of the judge that originally heard this case to not have ordered the injunction agist the ban when he first got the case.

Lazy, maybe.

I'm inclined to think the judge supported the unlawful taking of landlord's property, but knew the ruling would one day be overturned somewhere during the Appellate process.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Lazy, maybe.

I'm inclined to think the judge supported the unlawful taking of landlord's property, but knew the ruling would one day be overturned somewhere during the Appellate process.

He certainly should have known because Kavanagh said as much last time this was before SCOTUS.

 

[army judge]

He certainly should have known because Kavanagh said as much last time this was before SCOTUS.

That he did, but Kavanaugh is damaged goods in THEIR eyes.

Kavanaugh fails THEIR purity test.

 

[Tax Counsel]

I knew the CDC'S eviction moratorium would one day be outlawed.
It deprived citizens, namely landlords, of their property (rent) without due process. The federal government doesn't have the kind of power to issue edicts and mandates, unless due process is followed.

I never saw it as a due process problem. I always saw it as a problem that the statute the CDC was relying upon simply did not authorize the CDC to impose the moratorium. The Supreme Court seems to believe that was indeed a big part of the problem, as it indicated Congress could impose that moratorium, where the CDC could not. In my view, the Supreme Court did the right thing on this one.

And let's not forget, it was originally Trump who had the CDC start the eviction moratoriums. Biden simply followed his lead. Following Trump on much of anything is a dubious proposition.

 

[army judge]

And let's not forget, it was originally Trump who had the CDC start the eviction moratoriums. Biden simply followed his lead. Following Trump on much of anything is a dubious proposition.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I wish someone could explain to me how such an eviction moratorium isn't an illegal taking.

The 5th Amendment states, "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." There is no verbiage there that says it is OK if they just take it for a limited period.

 

[army judge]

I wish someone could explain to me how such an eviction moratorium isn't an illegal taking.

The 5th Amendment states, "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." There is no verbiage there that says it is OK if they just take it for a limited period.

It is as you described, mate.

You're no dummy.

You're a well informed citizen, who fully grasps the issues of our time.

The recent decision by the Supremes was a "per curiam" decision.

A per curiam decision is a ruling issued by an appellate court in which the decision rendered is made unanimously by the court or a majority of the court speaking collectively.

In brief, this decision spoke to agency law.

I don't see the argument against it being made properly.

There is nothing in our body of laws that permits or authorizes any agency of our government to snatch the property of any person without due process transpiring. The mandate handed down by an obscure health agency never had any teeth.

We'll soon see another blow to that agency (and similar state agencies) requiring citizens to imitate Jesse James and other notorious outlaws.

 

[army judge]

Here's a lengthier, better explanation:

Analysis: Biden's Supreme Court losses prompt more 'shadow docket' scrutiny

 

[Tax Counsel]

The 5th Amendment states, "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." There is no verbiage there that says it is OK if they just take it for a limited period.

The moratorium does not take property for public use. The owner still retains his property. The owner may still collect the rent for said property. The owner may still sell the property, mortgage it, improve it, and do anything else an owner may do with his property. The government, on the other hand, gets no rights whatsoever to the property. The government has not taken it for its use.

The owner is merely deprived of one avenue of dealing with the tenant: the power to use the courts for eviction. The government doesn't have to necessarily aid a landlord by evicting tenants in the first place and not providing that aid is not a taking. In short, what the CDC is doing is not depriving of his property, but depriving him of a particular government service. A highly useful service to be sure, but that doesn't amount to taking of property. At least not in the sense of a 5th Amendment taking.

Arguments have been raised before that all manner of regulation of property by the government constitutes a taking for which the owner must be compensated; by and large the courts have rejected those arguments except for regulation that has the effect of destroying nearly all value in the property.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

If the government with no due process takes your law license away that's OK?

The fact that the government didn't also place a moratorium on foreclosures of rental property has the same effect.

 

[Zigner]

The owner is merely deprived of one avenue of dealing with the tenant: the power to use the courts for eviction.

You're stopping short. The owner is actually deprived of the mitigation of the loss of rent, namely, evicting the non-paying tenant and bringing in a paying tenant. That's why it's a taking.

 

[Tax Counsel]

You're stopping short. The owner is actually deprived of the mitigation of the loss of rent, namely, evicting the non-paying tenant and bringing in a paying tenant. That's why it's a taking.

But that is the result of the government not providing a service (court eviction), not the government taking the property itself.

 

[Zigner]

But that is the result of the government not providing a service (court eviction), not the government taking the property itself.

That's like saying that a gunshot wound is not the result of pulling the trigger, rather, it's the result of the bullet entering the body.

EDIT: And it's really not the government simply not providing a service (like during a blackout or something). The government is not saying "we can't do that for you today", rather, it's saying YOU can't do that.

 

[Tax Counsel]

EDIT: And it's really not the government simply not providing a service (like during a blackout or something). The government is not saying "we can't do that for you today", rather, it's saying YOU can't do that.

No, it very much is the government saying "we can't do that for you today". The moratorium doesn't prevent a landlord from filing for eviction. It doesn't prevent a court from eventually issuing the eviction order. What it does is prevent the court from issuing that order during the moratorium period, i.e. you can't get it today. Once that period is over, the court can proceed with the eviction.

 

[Zigner]

No, it very much is the government saying "we can't do that for you today". The moratorium doesn't prevent a landlord from filing for eviction. It doesn't prevent a court from eventually issuing the eviction order. What it does is prevent the court from issuing that order during the moratorium period, i.e. you can't get it today. Once that period is over, the court can proceed with the eviction.

...with no guarantee of collecting any rent during that the government-imposed moratorium. The government is removing the ability of the LL to mitigate his damages. They are taking money.

That's my opinion and others' may vary.

 

[army judge]

...with no guarantee of collecting any rent during that the government-imposed moratorium. The government is removing the ability of the LL to mitigate his damages. They are taking money.

That's my opinion and others' may vary.

In my humble view, the GUBMINT is endorsing, aiding, and abetting squatters and moochers.

The GUBMINT'S actions cost it nothing.

The poor taxpayer gets no relief, as the GUBMINT'S tax meters are still running up the tab!!!

 

[Tax Counsel]

...with no guarantee of collecting any rent during that the government-imposed moratorium. The government is removing the ability of the LL to mitigate his damages. They are taking money.

No. The government is not "taking money". The government doesn't get a penny of the landlord's money from the imposed delay in evictions. It is simply not aiding the landlord out of his plight with a nonpaying tenant. It is the tenant who has the landlord's money.

I get that you don't like the eviction moratorium. I don't either. As I said, I've always thought the government lacked the power to do it, and the Supreme Court agrees with that. But a taking? No. The government is not taking anything for its own use. The word take is a key part of the 5th Amendment, and there is no taking by the government here. It gets nothing by way of property from the landlord as a result of the eviction moratorium.