District of Columbia v. Towers, 260 A.3d 690

On March 11, 2020, the D.C. Mayor declared a COVID-19 public health emergency; the Council thereafter enacted an eviction moratorium.
On May 13, 2020, the Council passed an emergency law prohibiting landlords from filing possession actions during the emergency and for 60 days after (retroactive to March 11, 2020).
Superior Court selected representative cases and on December 16, 2020 held the filing moratorium unconstitutional, reasoning it violated landlords’ fundamental right of access to the courts by denying expedited summary eviction proceedings.
The District appealed; this court granted a stay of the Superior Court’s order on May 13, 2021 and concluded the District was likely to succeed because the moratorium did not implicate the access-to-courts right.
The Mayor ended the emergency July 25, 2021 and subsequent legislation phased out tenant protections; filing for most evictions resumed by January 1, 2022, with intermediate filing windows earlier for certain bases.
The court of appeals reversed the Superior Court: it held there is no constitutional right to eviction on a particular timetable and the temporary filing moratorium did not violate the right of access to courts; the District’s rental-assistance program (STAY DC) provided alternative interim relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the filing moratorium violates the constitutional right of access to courts	Moratorium denies landlords their day in court and a constitutionally protected interest in summary eviction	Moratorium merely delays filings temporarily during an emergency; no total deprivation of judicial process	No violation; temporary delay does not burden the access right
Whether there is a fundamental constitutional right to eviction on a timetable	Landlords assert evictions on an expedited timetable are constitutionally protected	District says no fundamental right to eviction timing; obligations and title remain intact	No fundamental right to eviction on a particular timetable
Whether a temporary restriction that preserves eventual adjudication can be unconstitutional like permanent deprivation	Plaintiffs argue length and indefinite nature effect a practical deprivation	District relies on precedent upholding time-limited emergency measures and distinguishes permanent deprivations	Temporary, foreseeable resumption of proceedings is permissible; different from permanent exclusion
Whether available alternatives (rental-assistance and interim relief) affect constitutional analysis	Plaintiffs say moratorium prevents any interim relief from court registry orders	District points to STAY DC and other programs as alternative remedies and mitigation	Alternatives reduce claim of complete deprivation; supports constitutionality of moratorium

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974) (access-to-courts principle assuring opportunity to present constitutional claims)
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (U.S. 1971) (due process requires meaningful opportunity to be heard where denial would bar adjustment of a fundamental relationship)
United States v. Kras, 409 U.S. 434 (U.S. 1973) (access-to-courts not implicated where underlying claim is not a fundamental interest)
Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (U.S. 1975) (delay differs from total deprivation; eventual adjudication can cure temporary access restrictions)
Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (U.S. 2002) (access-to-courts claims are ancillary and aimed at vindicating an underlying right)
Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135 (U.S. 1921) (upholding time-limited emergency eviction restrictions to tide over a passing trouble)
Sharps v. United States, 246 A.3d 1141 (D.C. 2021) (emergency tolling ends when emergency ends; proceedings resume in foreseeable future)