4 ms·

It still seems crazy to me that the CDC has the authority to interfere with contracts between citizens regarding tenancy. The right way to deal with this issue

It still seems crazy to me that the CDC has the authority to interfere with contracts between citizens regarding tenancy. The right way to deal with this issue is via the lawmaking process. If they want to extend the moratorium, they can do it at anytime, they just have to go through the process.

Retric 5y ago
CDC has extreme powers to do things like indefinitely detain an infectious person or even do large scale quarantines. The tenancy issue is surprisingly mild by comparison.
- nate_meurer 5y ago
  As earlier commenters here pointed out, the supreme court disagrees, and suggests the CDC won't be allowed to do this again. Others as well, including the sixth circuit. From https://reason.com/2021/07/26/federal-appeals-court-sneaks-in-one-final-ruling-against-the-cdcs-expiring-eviction-moratorium/ https://reason.com/2021/07/26/federal-appeals-court-sneaks-i...: > "The Sixth Circuit's ruling represents the sixth time a lower court has struck down the CDC's moratorium, with most decisions similarly criticizing the near-limitless powers the agency was trying to claim for itself."
  - Retric 5y ago
    “Three other federal courts have ruled in favor of the CDC's eviction moratorium, including a U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruling in June. That same month, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take up an emergency petition to hear a challenge to the moratorium, although a majority of five justices did indicate that they considered the policy illegal.” It’s less clear cut than your suggesting. The Supreme Court left the memorandum in place 5-4 while saying they would reject continuing it without congressional involvement. So, it looks like the CDC could do this on the next pandemic, just not for this one.
    - nate_meurer 5y ago
      Maybe so, I'm no expert. But it does seem like the SCOTUS ruling presents a dead end for the CDC if it tries for another moratorium unilaterally.
      - Retric 5y ago
        Sure, for COVID but not a hypothetical SARS-16 in 2046. It’s a tough balancing act because retroactively judging their response to COVID is one thing, but nobody wants to tie their hands of a vastly worse disease shows up. Biologically a disease could be airborne and more infectious with a 20+% case fatality rate and a 1 month incubation period. At which point just about anything is on the table.
duxup 5y ago
As far as the CDC goes they have pretty extensive powers, but they are limited to extreme situations. Having huge population evicted during a serious pandemic or disaster could make things significantly worse. It's not like the CDC uses these rules all the time.
thaunatos 5y ago
I don't believe the CDC has this authority: > On Thursday, the White House confirmed it would let the moratorium expire because the supreme court said it would block additional extensions unless they were authorized by Congress. The Supreme Court did vote 5-4 to leave the moratorium in place, but this NPR article provides more context: > Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who cast the fifth and deciding vote, wrote in a concurring opinion that he voted not to end the eviction program only because it is set to expire on July 31, "and because those few weeks will allow for additional and more orderly distribution" of the funds that Congress appropriated to provide rental assistance to those in need due to the pandemic. He added, however, that in his view Congress would have to pass new and clearer legislation to extend the moratorium past July 31 (https://www.npr.org/2021/06/29/1003268497/the-supreme-court-leaves-the-cdcs-moratorium-on-evictions-in-place https://www.npr.org/2021/06/29/1003268497/the-supreme-court-...) It sounds like the Supreme Court would block any renewed attempt to ban evictions, unless Congress was behind the attempt.
- duxup 5y ago
  I think this is as much "if you want to do this again you need better guidelines / legislation". Rather than "you can't ever do this". I'm threading the needle here, but that's what SCOTUS does.
coleca 5y ago
Several courts agreed that the CDC does not have that authority (https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/05/05/federal-judge-vacates-cdcs-nationwide-eviction-moratorium/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/05/05/federal-j...). However, the Supreme Court decided to punt and leave the moratorium in place since it is set to expire at the end of the month (https://www.npr.org/2021/06/29/1003268497/the-supreme-court-leaves-the-cdcs-moratorium-on-evictions-in-place https://www.npr.org/2021/06/29/1003268497/the-supreme-court-...) but warned that further extensions would need to go through Congress.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
betterunix2 5y ago
Preventing the spread of a deadly disease (basically the job of the CDC) required people to stay home. Evictions stand in direct opposition to that goal; moreover, the economic shock of social distancing requirements would have greatly increased the number of evictions, and thus the moratorium was instated. This is not rocket science. The question is not, "Did the CDC do the right thing?" or "Did the CDC have the right to do this thing?" but rather, "How long should the CDC be able to impose an emergency mandate like this before we insist on a more democratic approach?"
- sneak 5y ago
  I think their point was that the answer is a literal "zero seconds". The CDC should not have the authority to appropriate property, not for a month, not for a minute.
  - betterunix2 5y ago
    In which case we would have had a wave of evictions and a spike in homelessness during the most difficult phase of the pandemic -- when we had no vaccines, limited testing capacity, and hospitals that were way over capacity with COVID patients. That would have left many more people dead and greatly reduced compliance with social distancing rules as desperate people (facing eviction or already evicted) skirted the rules in an attempt to make enough money to cover their rent. It would also have given people an easy excuse for dismissing the CDC's guidance in general, since the CDC would have been making a completely unreasonable demand ("stay home" is unreasonable if you need to leave your home to show up at work so you have enough money to make rent). The CDC does not have the ability to pay everyone's rent. If we could have relied on state governments or Congress to bail out rent for people who were unable to make rent otherwise, maybe the moratorium would not have been necessary. Unfortunately, that is not even remotely something we can rely on -- we have spent over a year arguing about whether the "relief" checks, which would not even cover rent in many cities, are too generous. Emergency powers are not a problem -- in an emergency there is no time for political parties to work out some kind of deal or for judges to review facts / legal arguments, and we allow certain government agencies to take emergency actions in such situations. Look at how long it took for the courts to overrule the CDC; if that is how long it took to react to emergencies we would be at the mercy of every fire, disease outbreak, hurricane, etc. The only relevant question to protecting democracy is, "How long should an emergency order remain in effect before the legislature or judiciary gets involved?"
aaomidi 5y ago
Have you studied what happened with the Spanish flu and eviction crisis and how millions more people died because of lack of access to proper housing?

Retric 5y ago

CDC has extreme powers to do things like indefinitely detain an infectious person or even do large scale quarantines. The tenancy issue is surprisingly mild by comparison.

nate_meurer 5y ago
As earlier commenters here pointed out, the supreme court disagrees, and suggests the CDC won't be allowed to do this again. Others as well, including the sixth circuit. From https://reason.com/2021/07/26/federal-appeals-court-sneaks-in-one-final-ruling-against-the-cdcs-expiring-eviction-moratorium/ https://reason.com/2021/07/26/federal-appeals-court-sneaks-i...: > "The Sixth Circuit's ruling represents the sixth time a lower court has struck down the CDC's moratorium, with most decisions similarly criticizing the near-limitless powers the agency was trying to claim for itself."
- Retric 5y ago
  “Three other federal courts have ruled in favor of the CDC's eviction moratorium, including a U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruling in June. That same month, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take up an emergency petition to hear a challenge to the moratorium, although a majority of five justices did indicate that they considered the policy illegal.” It’s less clear cut than your suggesting. The Supreme Court left the memorandum in place 5-4 while saying they would reject continuing it without congressional involvement. So, it looks like the CDC could do this on the next pandemic, just not for this one.
  - nate_meurer 5y ago
    Maybe so, I'm no expert. But it does seem like the SCOTUS ruling presents a dead end for the CDC if it tries for another moratorium unilaterally.
    - Retric 5y ago
      Sure, for COVID but not a hypothetical SARS-16 in 2046. It’s a tough balancing act because retroactively judging their response to COVID is one thing, but nobody wants to tie their hands of a vastly worse disease shows up. Biologically a disease could be airborne and more infectious with a 20+% case fatality rate and a 1 month incubation period. At which point just about anything is on the table.

duxup 5y ago

As far as the CDC goes they have pretty extensive powers, but they are limited to extreme situations. Having huge population evicted during a serious pandemic or disaster could make things significantly worse. It's not like the CDC uses these rules all the time.

thaunatos 5y ago

I don't believe the CDC has this authority: > On Thursday, the White House confirmed it would let the moratorium expire because the supreme court said it would block additional extensions unless they were authorized by Congress. The Supreme Court did vote 5-4 to leave the moratorium in place, but this NPR article provides more context: > Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who cast the fifth and deciding vote, wrote in a concurring opinion that he voted not to end the eviction program only because it is set to expire on July 31, "and because those few weeks will allow for additional and more orderly distribution" of the funds that Congress appropriated to provide rental assistance to those in need due to the pandemic. He added, however, that in his view Congress would have to pass new and clearer legislation to extend the moratorium past July 31 (https://www.npr.org/2021/06/29/1003268497/the-supreme-court-leaves-the-cdcs-moratorium-on-evictions-in-place https://www.npr.org/2021/06/29/1003268497/the-supreme-court-...) It sounds like the Supreme Court would block any renewed attempt to ban evictions, unless Congress was behind the attempt.

duxup 5y ago
I think this is as much "if you want to do this again you need better guidelines / legislation". Rather than "you can't ever do this". I'm threading the needle here, but that's what SCOTUS does.

coleca 5y ago

Several courts agreed that the CDC does not have that authority (https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/05/05/federal-judge-vacates-cdcs-nationwide-eviction-moratorium/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/05/05/federal-j...). However, the Supreme Court decided to punt and leave the moratorium in place since it is set to expire at the end of the month (https://www.npr.org/2021/06/29/1003268497/the-supreme-court-leaves-the-cdcs-moratorium-on-evictions-in-place https://www.npr.org/2021/06/29/1003268497/the-supreme-court-...) but warned that further extensions would need to go through Congress.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

betterunix2 5y ago

Preventing the spread of a deadly disease (basically the job of the CDC) required people to stay home. Evictions stand in direct opposition to that goal; moreover, the economic shock of social distancing requirements would have greatly increased the number of evictions, and thus the moratorium was instated. This is not rocket science. The question is not, "Did the CDC do the right thing?" or "Did the CDC have the right to do this thing?" but rather, "How long should the CDC be able to impose an emergency mandate like this before we insist on a more democratic approach?"

sneak 5y ago
I think their point was that the answer is a literal "zero seconds". The CDC should not have the authority to appropriate property, not for a month, not for a minute.
- betterunix2 5y ago
  In which case we would have had a wave of evictions and a spike in homelessness during the most difficult phase of the pandemic -- when we had no vaccines, limited testing capacity, and hospitals that were way over capacity with COVID patients. That would have left many more people dead and greatly reduced compliance with social distancing rules as desperate people (facing eviction or already evicted) skirted the rules in an attempt to make enough money to cover their rent. It would also have given people an easy excuse for dismissing the CDC's guidance in general, since the CDC would have been making a completely unreasonable demand ("stay home" is unreasonable if you need to leave your home to show up at work so you have enough money to make rent). The CDC does not have the ability to pay everyone's rent. If we could have relied on state governments or Congress to bail out rent for people who were unable to make rent otherwise, maybe the moratorium would not have been necessary. Unfortunately, that is not even remotely something we can rely on -- we have spent over a year arguing about whether the "relief" checks, which would not even cover rent in many cities, are too generous. Emergency powers are not a problem -- in an emergency there is no time for political parties to work out some kind of deal or for judges to review facts / legal arguments, and we allow certain government agencies to take emergency actions in such situations. Look at how long it took for the courts to overrule the CDC; if that is how long it took to react to emergencies we would be at the mercy of every fire, disease outbreak, hurricane, etc. The only relevant question to protecting democracy is, "How long should an emergency order remain in effect before the legislature or judiciary gets involved?"

aaomidi 5y ago

Have you studied what happened with the Spanish flu and eviction crisis and how millions more people died because of lack of access to proper housing?