Alabama Assn. of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Servs.
594 U.S. 758
SCOTUS2021Background
- The CDC promulgated a nationwide eviction moratorium (and later a geographically narrowed reissue) during COVID‑19, relying on 42 U.S.C. §361(a) of the Public Health Service Act.
- Plaintiffs (Alabama Association of Realtors and others) sued, and the D.C. District Court held the moratorium unlawful and entered judgment for plaintiffs but stayed enforcement pending appeal.
- The D.C. Circuit and this Court initially declined to vacate that stay; Justice Kavanaugh concurred in denying emergency relief but agreed the CDC likely exceeded its authority.
- After the moratorium expired, the CDC reissued a similar order; plaintiffs moved to vacate the District Court’s stay and enforce the judgment.
- The Supreme Court (per curiam) granted the application to vacate the stay, concluding the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits because §361(a) does not authorize a nationwide eviction moratorium and that the equities favor plaintiffs.
- Justice Breyer (joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan) dissented, arguing the CDC’s targeted moratorium is plausibly within §361(a), the public‑health interests outweigh landlords’ harms, and summary emergency relief was inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority under §361(a) — may CDC impose an eviction moratorium? | §361(a) authorizes measures directly targeting disease (fumigation, disinfection); it does not authorize a nationwide eviction ban. | §361(a) authorizes any measures the agency deems "necessary" to prevent interstate spread, including eviction moratoria aimed at preventing displacement and transmission. | Court: §361(a) does not grant CDC authority for a sweeping eviction moratorium; plaintiffs virtually certain to succeed. |
| Application of stay factors (Nken) — should the District Court’s stay remain? | The stay should be vacated: plaintiffs likely to succeed, landlords face irreparable harm, equities and public interest do not support continued stay. | Government argued the stay should remain because the public‑health need and CDC judgment justify it. | Court: Vacated stay; equities and likelihood of success favor plaintiffs. |
| Major‑questions / clear‑statement principle — must Congress speak clearly? | A measure of vast economic and political significance requires clear congressional authorization; §361(a) is not clear enough. | The statute’s broad grant and historical practice support CDC discretion; Congress has recognized CDC actions before. | Court: Major‑questions concerns support reading §361(a) narrowly; Congress must authorize such sweeping action. |
| Federalism / property interests — does moratorium intrude on state/domestic law? | Evictions and landlord–tenant law are core state domains and private‑property rights (including right to exclude); federal intrusion requires clear authorization. | Public‑health emergencies permit federal measures to prevent interstate spread that may incidentally affect state domains. | Court: Emphasized federalism and property interests as reasons to require clear congressional authorization. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (articulating four‑factor stay test).
- Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (2014) (agencies need clear congressional authorization for rules of vast economic and political significance).
- FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000) (refusing expansive agency authority absent clear congressional intent).
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982) (protecting fundamental property rights, e.g., right to exclude).
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (limits on executive power even in emergencies).
- Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 (1972) (landlord–tenant law as traditionally state law domain).
- Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. v. Abbott, 571 U.S. 1061 (2013) (standards on vacating lower‑court stays in in‑chambers practice cited by dissent).
- Tiger Lily, LLC v. HUD, 5 F.4th 666 (6th Cir. 2021) (circuit decision upholding CDC authority; cited to show circuit split).
- FTC v. American Tobacco Co., 264 U.S. 298 (1924) (interpreting scope of statutory language regarding agency powers).