524 F.Supp.3d 745
N.D. Ohio2021Background
- Congress enacted a limited, 120-day eviction moratorium for certain federally backed properties in the CARES Act; that statutory protection expired July 24, 2020.
- President Trump issued an Executive Order directing HHS/CDC to consider eviction halts; CDC issued a nationwide eviction moratorium (Sept. 4, 2020) under 42 U.S.C. § 264 and 42 C.F.R. § 70.2, covering nonpayment-of-rent evictions but excluding criminal/conduct-based evictions and leaving rent obligations intact; tenants had to submit a seven-part declaration to qualify.
- Congress temporarily extended the CDC’s first order to Jan. 31, 2021 by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, but did not amend § 361 or expressly authorize a moratorium.
- CDC issued a second order extending the moratorium through March 31, 2021; CDC relied on modeling, interstate-movement concerns, outbreaks in shelters, and continuing eviction filings.
- A group of landlords and a trade association sued, claiming the CDC exceeded its statutory and regulatory authority, violated the APA and the Constitution, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; the court advanced the merits on the papers.
- The court held the CDC orders exceeded the authority granted by § 361/42 C.F.R. § 70.2, set the orders aside under the APA, granted declaratory relief, and declined to issue an injunction because monetary relief could redress plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 42 U.S.C. § 361(§264) authorizes CDC to impose a nationwide eviction moratorium | §361 only permits measures directed at infected "animals or articles" or similar targeted measures; a nationwide eviction ban exceeds that scope | §361 authorizes "other measures" beyond the listed examples; CDC may adopt reasonably necessary measures to prevent interstate spread | Court: Statute’s text and context limit "other measures" to actions like inspection/fumigation tied to infected animals/articles; nationwide eviction moratorium exceeds §361 authority |
| Whether 42 C.F.R. § 70.2 authorizes the moratorium | Regulation tracks §361 and cannot expand CDC’s authority beyond statute | Regulation authorizes measures reasonably necessary to prevent interstate spread when state actions are insufficient | Court: Regulation mirrors statute; because §361 does not authorize the moratorium, the regulation cannot validate it |
| Whether Congress ratified CDC’s action by extending the first order in the Consolidated Appropriations Act | Plaintiffs: the extension did not amount to ratification or authorization of the substantive policy because Congress merely extended the order’s effective date and did not amend §361 | Defendants: extension amounted to congressional ratification/authorization of the moratorium | Court: Extension of an order’s expiration date is not an explicit congressional ratification of CDC’s substantive authority; no statutory amendment or clear ratifying language existed |
| Appropriate remedy (declaratory judgment vs. injunction) | Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief | Defendants argued equitable relief inappropriate because plaintiffs could be made whole by money damages | Court: Plaintiffs entitled to declaratory judgment invalidating the orders under the APA; injunction denied because plaintiffs’ harm was compensable in money damages |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ron Pair Enters., 489 U.S. 235 (statutory interpretation begins with the statute's plain text)
- Gundy v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2116 (courts must read statutes in context and avoid isolating terms)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (framework for deference to agency statutory interpretation)
- Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. F.C.C., 476 U.S. 355 (agencies act only when Congress confers power)
- Independent Turtle Farmers of La., Inc. v. United States, 703 F. Supp. 2d 604 (W.D. La.) (upholding FDA measure under §361 as a targeted public-health regulation)
- United States v. Heinszen & Co., 206 U.S. 370 (Congress may ratify prior executive acts if it clearly does so)
- Swayne & Hoyt v. United States, 300 U.S. 297 (Congressional ratification can validate prior unauthorized acts when explicit)
- Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420 (mere congressional acquiescence is not sufficient to ratify administrative action)