4 F.4th 1220
11th Cir.2021Background
- In Sept. 2020 the CDC issued a nationwide temporary eviction moratorium under 42 U.S.C. § 264 to prevent COVID-19 spread; it barred evictions for nonpayment by "covered persons" who submit a sworn declaration meeting income, hardship, and "best efforts" criteria.
- Congress and the CDC extended the moratorium multiple times through summer 2021; Congress also appropriated emergency rental assistance funds.
- Several landlords and the National Apartment Association sued, alleging the CDC exceeded statutory authority, acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and violated access-to-courts; they sought a preliminary injunction to block enforcement.
- The district court denied the preliminary injunction; plaintiffs appealed. The majority affirmed, holding plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm; Judge Tjoflat concurred; Judge Branch dissented arguing plaintiffs showed likely success on the merits and irreparable harm from insolvent tenants.
- Central legal tensions: (1) statutory scope of CDC authority under § 264(a) (whether it permits a nationwide eviction moratorium), and (2) whether landlords established the extraordinary showing of irreparable injury (including insolvency of tenants and inadequacy of money damages).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory authority — Does 42 U.S.C. § 264 authorize the CDC's nationwide eviction moratorium? | CDC exceeded § 264(a); the statute contemplates measures tied to infected articles/people, not sweeping eviction bans. | § 264(a) grants broad authority to issue regulations "necessary" to prevent interstate spread, including the moratorium. | Majority: Doubts about merits but did not decide; dissent: likely exceed authority (would block undermajor-questions/ejusdem generis reasoning). Appellate outcome affirmed on other grounds (failure to show irreparable harm). |
| Irreparable harm — Are landlords suffering irreparable injury absent injunction? | Landlords: tenants who signed CDC declarations are effectively insolvent (will not be collectible), so money damages are inadequate; deprivation of property and access to courts are also irreparable. | Government: injuries are economic and compensable; declarations show only short-term inability to pay and do not establish uncollectibility; available remedies (suits, judgments, execution, rental-assistance programs) make harm reparable. | Held: Plaintiffs failed to clearly establish likely irreparable harm; denial of preliminary injunction affirmed. |
| Access-to-courts claim — Does the Order irreparably deprive landlords of their right to access courts? | Plaintiffs: the moratorium illegally denies meaningful relief and access because it prevents execution of evictions. | Government: Order does not bar filing suits or obtaining judgments; it only delays physical eviction; landlords can litigate in state court and obtain relief. | Held: Access-to-courts and other constitutional claims do not establish irreparable harm here. |
| Adequacy of legal remedies — Are money damages or state-court remedies inadequate? | Plaintiffs: tenants’ sworn declarations plus nonpayment show likely judgment-proof status making money remedies illusory. | Government: landlords offered insufficient evidence tenants are permanently unable to pay; common collection tools exist; rental-assistance funds and state remedies remain available. | Held: Record insufficient to show collection would be impossible or that legal remedies are inadequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary-injunction standard and extraordinary-nature requirement)
- Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163 (11th Cir. 2000) (plaintiff bears burden to clearly establish each preliminary-injunction factor; constitutional violations not automatically irreparable)
- Northeast Fla. Chapter of Associated General Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d 1283 (11th Cir. 1990) (preliminary-injunction factors and economic damages analysis)
- United States v. Askins & Miller Orthopaedics, P.A., 924 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2019) (collectability evidence can show money judgment inadequate; insolvency can support irreparable harm)
- United States v. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511 (11th Cir. 1983) (failure to carry burden on irreparable harm requires affirming denial of injunction)
- Johnson v. United States Department of Agriculture, 734 F.2d 774 (11th Cir. 1984) (wrongful ejectment from residence can be irreparable)
- Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006) (federalism principle: Congress must clearly authorize federal intrusion into traditional state domains)
- Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (2014) (major-questions principle: clear congressional authorization required for agency actions of vast economic/political significance)
- FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000) (agency power must be grounded in clear congressional authorization)
- TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001) (canon against surplusage in statutory construction)
- Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. 528 (2015) (ejusdem generis and related canons constraining broad catchall phrases)