Chrysafis v. Marks
The Supreme Court temporarily blocked a New York pandemic eviction law that allowed tenants to freeze eviction proceedings by self-certifying financial hardship, ruling that denying landlords any opportunity to contest that claim likely violated the constitutional guarantee of a fair hearing.
The order arrived less than three weeks before the law was set to expire, and it left a separate New York eviction-hardship law — one that does allow landlords to challenge tenants' claims in court — fully in place.
How it got here: Landlords sought an emergency injunction in federal district court; that court denied it; the Second Circuit had not yet ruled; landlords applied directly to the Supreme Court.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Five New York landlords and a landlords' organization challenged a state pandemic-era law, the COVID Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act (CEEFPA), that allowed tenants to pause eviction proceedings indefinitely by filing a sworn statement claiming financial hardship — without giving landlords any right to challenge that claim in court or receive any hearing. The landlords argued this arrangement violated their constitutional rights and sought an emergency court order blocking the law.
The question before the Court
Did New York's pandemic eviction law — which let tenants halt proceedings by self-certifying financial hardship while denying landlords any chance to contest that claim — violate constitutional due process?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Court temporarily blocked enforcement of the challenged portion of New York's law. Part A of CEEFPA let tenants halt eviction proceedings simply by self-certifying financial hardship, with no mechanism for landlords to contest that claim or receive a neutral hearing. The Court found this arrangement violated the bedrock constitutional principle that no one should be the final judge of their own case — meaning even in an emergency, the government must provide some form of impartial review before stripping a property owner of the right to proceed.
The order was narrow: it blocked only Part A of CEEFPA and did not disturb the Tenant Safe Harbor Act, a separate New York law that still allows courts to evaluate financial hardship claims with input from both sides. The injunction remains in effect only while the landlords' legal challenge works through the appeals courts.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
New York landlords who had been frozen out of eviction proceedings by tenants' self-certifications could immediately resume those cases in court. Tenants who had relied on the blocked law's automatic protection lost that shield earlier than expected, at a moment when New York was still distributing over $2 billion in federal rental assistance. The order was temporary and applied only to one specific provision of one state law.
What changes now
The injunction blocks enforcement of Part A of CEEFPA while the landlords' challenge continues before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and potentially at the Supreme Court if certiorari is sought. Because CEEFPA was already set to expire on August 31, 2021 — less than three weeks after this order — the immediate practical effect was brief. The order terminates automatically if the landlords do not seek certiorari, or upon the Court's final judgment if they do. The dissent noted landlords could renew their request if New York extended CEEFPA.
What this does not decide
The order does not decide whether CEEFPA is ultimately unconstitutional — that question remains in the lower courts. It does not affect the Tenant Safe Harbor Act, does not address any other state's pandemic eviction laws, and does not resolve the landlords' separate First Amendment compelled-speech argument.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Breyer
Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, argued that the landlords had not met the strict standard for blocking a state law — requiring that their legal rights be 'indisputably clear' and circumstances 'critical and exigent.' He contended the due process question was genuinely uncertain because the law could be read as briefly delaying evictions rather than denying rights outright, especially since it was set to expire in under three weeks. He also argued that the balance of hardships favored tenants who had relied on the law's protections and that courts should respect New York's broad authority to respond to the pandemic.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court applied the foundational due process principle that 'no man can be a judge in his own case' — meaning before someone is stripped of a legal right, there must be a neutral decision-maker and some opportunity to be heard, not just a one-sided declaration by the other party.
- Part A of CEEFPA allowed tenants to file a sworn self-certification of financial hardship that automatically froze eviction proceedings. Crucially, landlords had no mechanism to challenge that certification — no court hearing, no cross-examination, no neutral arbiter assessing whether the claimed hardship was real.
- Because the tenant's own uncontested statement determined whether the landlord could proceed at all, the Court found that tenants were effectively acting as judges in their own cases — the precise arrangement the Due Process Clause is designed to prevent.
- The Court limited the injunction strictly to Part A — the self-certification and automatic-freeze mechanism — leaving the Tenant Safe Harbor Act intact. That separate law gives courts independent authority to evaluate hardship claims on the evidence, satisfying the constitutional requirement for a neutral hearing.