508 F.Supp.3d 101
W.D. La.2020Background
- On Sept. 4, 2020 the CDC issued a temporary nationwide eviction moratorium (through Dec. 31, 2020 unless extended) under 42 U.S.C. § 264 and 42 C.F.R. § 70.2, forbidding eviction of qualifying tenants for nonpayment of rent (tenants must execute a sworn declaration to qualify).
- Plaintiffs (Chambless Enterprises, LLC and Apartment Association of Louisiana) sued seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of the CDC Order, arguing it exceeded statutory/regulatory authority, violated the non-delegation doctrine, and violated the APA notice-and-comment requirements.
- Defendants (CDC, HHS and federal officials) argued the Order is within CDC authority, the statute provides an intelligible principle, the Order is authorized emergency action under existing regulations, and that injunction would harm public health.
- The court found the statutory text and regulation plainly authorize the CDC to take measures it deems "necessary" to prevent disease spread and that the CDC reasonably determined an eviction moratorium was necessary to limit COVID-19 transmission.
- The court concluded Plaintiffs did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, did not show irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and the public interest favored denial of a preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory/regulatory authority (§264 and §70.2) | §264/§70.2 are limited to enumerated site/object measures (inspection, fumigation, disinfection, etc.); they do not authorize a nationwide eviction ban | The statute/regulation grants broad authority to adopt "such measures...as [the Secretary/Director] deems necessary" to prevent spread; examples are illustrative not exhaustive | Held: CDC Order falls within the broad delegation in §264 and §70.2; canons of construction do not overcome the plain text supporting agency discretion |
| Non-delegation doctrine | If §264 authorizes the Order, it is an unconstitutional delegation because it leaves no intelligible principle and is boundless | §264 articulates the general policy (prevent spread of communicable disease), identifies the agency, and requires measures be "necessary" in the agency’s judgment—an intelligible principle | Held: Delegation is constitutional; statute provides sufficient intelligible principle for agency action |
| APA notice-and-comment | The Order is a legislative rule of general applicability and thus required notice-and-comment rulemaking | The Order is an emergency action taken under existing regulation authorizing immediate measures; alternatively, good-cause exception for notice-and-comment applies due to public-health emergency | Held: The Order is authorized emergency action under the regulation and satisfies the APA good-cause exception; notice-and-comment not required |
| Irreparable harm & balance of equities / public interest | Plaintiffs suffer irreparable harm: constitutional violations, loss of possession/right to exclude, and likely insolvent tenants making monetary relief inadequate | Economic harms to landlords are compensable; injunction would risk increased COVID-19 spread and public-health harms outweigh plaintiffs’ harms | Held: Plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm; equities and public interest favor Defendants—preliminary injunction denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Sepulvado v. Jindal, 729 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2013) (four-factor preliminary injunction standard)
- Bluefield Water Ass’n v. City of Starkville, 577 F.3d 250 (5th Cir. 2009) (extraordinary nature of preliminary injunction; movant’s burden)
- City of Arlington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290 (2013) (deference to agencies when statute delegates authority in broad terms)
- Gonzalez v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006) (recognizing broad delegations where statute uses "necessary" language)
- Independent Turtle Farmers of La. v. United States, 703 F. Supp. 2d 604 (W.D. La. 2010) (interpreting §264(a) catch‑all authority as non‑exhaustive)
- Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989) (intelligible principle test for nondelegation)
- Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457 (2001) (delegation to protect public health as an intelligible principle)
- Touby v. United States, 500 U.S. 160 (1991) (delegation upheld where standard protects public safety)
- Gundy v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2116 (2019) (modern nondelegation discussion)
- Big Time Vapes, Inc. v. FDA, 963 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2020) (delegation and public‑health regulatory authority)