3 ms·

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 sixt

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.

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.