Alabama Assn. of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Servs.

Background

Real estate groups and many landlords sued after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) imposed a nationwide eviction moratorium tied to areas with high COVID–19 spread and tenant declarations of financial need. A federal district court found the CDC lacked authority and struck down the moratorium but stayed enforcement while the Government appealed; the CDC later reissued a similar moratorium.

Reasoning

The Court examined the statute the CDC invoked, a long-standing public-health law that lists measures like inspection, fumigation, disinfection, and pest extermination. The Court said those examples show the kind of direct measures Congress contemplated and that using the same statute to authorize a nationwide eviction ban is a stretch. The majority concluded the CDC’s claimed authority would be extraordinarily broad, affect millions, intrude on state landlord–tenant law, and impose heavy economic and criminal consequences. The Court therefore vacated the lower court’s stay so the judgment finding the moratorium unlawful can take effect, and said only Congress can authorize a federal eviction moratorium of this scope.

Real world impact

As a practical matter, the ruling lets the district court’s judgment against the moratorium become enforceable, reopening landlords’ ability to pursue evictions where lawful. The decision emphasizes that future nationwide eviction bans require clear congressional authorization and shifts the responsibility for such broad relief to lawmakers.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Breyer (joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan) dissented, arguing the CDC’s tailored moratorium targeted high-transmission areas, aimed to prevent disease spread from eviction-driven moves, and that the public-health emergency and balance of equities supported leaving the stay in place.