Facts
- Congress enacted the CARES Act in March 2020, which imposed a limited, 120-day eviction moratorium for certain federally related properties; it expired in July 2020 and was not renewed.
- The CDC, invoking 42 U.S.C. § 264(a), issued a nationwide eviction moratorium intended to reduce COVID-19 transmission.
- The CDC moratorium applied broadly to residential evictions, conditioned on tenant hardship declarations, and carried criminal penalties for violations.
- The CDC extended the moratorium multiple times administratively; Congress extended it only once, briefly, in late 2020.
- A federal district court held the CDC moratorium exceeded statutory authority and vacated it nationwide, but stayed its judgment pending appeal.
- After the Supreme Court previously declined to lift the stay in June 2021 (with a concurrence indicating further extensions required clear congressional authorization), the CDC issued a revised August 2021 order tied to counties with substantial or high transmission.
- Landlords and related plaintiffs sought emergency relief in the Supreme Court to vacate the stay, which prevented the district court’s vacatur from taking effect against the August 2021 order.
Issues
- Whether 42 U.S.C. § 264(a) authorizes the CDC to impose a broad eviction moratorium affecting landlord-tenant relationships across the country.
- Whether the applicants were entitled to emergency relief vacating the stay of the district court’s judgment that set aside the CDC moratorium.
Decision
- The Court (per curiam) granted the application and vacated the stay, making the district court’s judgment immediately effective.
- The Court concluded the applicants were “virtually certain to succeed on the merits” that the CDC exceeded its statutory authority under § 264(a).
- The Court reasoned that the statute’s listed examples (e.g., fumigation, disinfection, pest extermination, destruction of contaminated animals or articles) do not support an eviction moratorium of such breadth.
- The Court emphasized the moratorium’s significant economic impact and its regulation of an area traditionally governed by state law.
- The Court held that continuation of a federally imposed eviction moratorium would require clear and specific congressional authorization.
- The Court acknowledged public health concerns but stated agencies may not act beyond statutory limits even to pursue desirable ends; available rental-assistance funds reduced the claimed need for the moratorium.
- Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, dissented, arguing the Court should have left the stay in place pending full appellate review given the public health stakes and asserted statutory breadth.
Legal Principles
- An agency must point to statutory authority that plausibly encompasses the regulatory action taken; broad social and economic regulation generally requires clear congressional authorization.
- Under statutory interpretation principles (including ejusdem generis), a general phrase such as “other measures” may be limited by the specific measures listed in the statute.
- When an agency asserts power of significant economic and political consequence, courts are reluctant to infer authorization from general or ancillary statutory language.
- Emergency conditions do not permit agencies to exceed statutory limits; equitable balancing does not justify maintaining an unlawful agency action.
Conclusion
The Court terminated the CDC’s eviction moratorium by vacating the stay of the district court’s vacatur, holding the applicants were virtually certain to prevail that 42 U.S.C. § 264(a) did not clearly authorize the CDC to impose an eviction moratorium of sweeping scope without specific congressional approval.