521 F.Supp.3d 662
E.D. Tex.2021Background
- In Sept. 2020 the CDC issued a nationwide Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19, later extended through March 31, 2021; it bars evictions of "covered persons" who submit a five-part declaration and exempts certain safety/criminal grounds.
- The order does not forgive rent or alter financial obligations; it criminalizes prohibited evictions (individual penalties include imprisonment and fines).
- Plaintiffs are landlords/property managers seeking to evict tenants for nonpayment; two plaintiffs were dismissed for lack of standing; remaining plaintiffs sued seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that the order exceeds federal constitutional power.
- Defendants (federal government/CDC/HHS) defended the order under Congress’s Commerce Clause authority and the Necessary and Proper Clause; they conceded the claim does not depend on COVID-19 specifically and could be applied more broadly.
- The district court converted preliminary-injunction briefing to summary-judgment review on a purely legal question, considered the administrative record, and concluded the order exceeded Article I commerce power.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CDC order is authorized by the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause | Terkel: eviction moratorium is a regulation of local property remedies and falls outside Article I commerce power | Gov: moratorium mitigates public-health harms that, in aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce; necessary and proper to regulate spread of disease | Court: order exceeds Article I power; eviction is non‑economic/local and lacks sufficient nexus, findings, or jurisdictional element to sustain federal regulation |
| Whether an injunction should issue along with declaratory relief | Plaintiffs sought injunction against enforcement | Gov asked to rely on declaratory judgment assurances and administrative record; urged deference | Court: granted declaratory judgment invalidating order but declined to issue an injunction at this time (defendants expected to respect judgment); injunction left available later if needed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) (aggregation principle for local economic activity under Commerce Clause/Necessary and Proper analysis)
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (limits Commerce Clause; identifies three categories of regulable activity and requires substantial effects test)
- United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (rejects broad aggregation for noneconomic activity; sets four considerations for Commerce Clause analysis)
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (upholds federal regulation of locally cultivated marijuana under Necessary and Proper Clause tied to broader economic market)
- United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010) (Necessary and Proper Clause framework and inquiry into historical practice/limits)
- Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934) (recognizes state police powers to regulate remedies and property during emergencies)
- Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844 (2014) (federal government lacks a general police power; distinguishes state police powers)
- McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819) (foundational Necessary and Proper Clause principles)
- National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) (opinion recognizing limits on federal power over areas of traditional state concern)