992 F.3d 518
6th Cir.2021Background
- In March 2020 Congress enacted a limited, 120-day eviction moratorium in the CARES Act; that statutory moratorium expired July 25, 2020.
- The CDC issued a nationwide eviction Halt Order in September 2020, citing authority under 42 U.S.C. § 264(a) (powers to prevent spread of communicable diseases, including inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, and “other measures”).
- Congress extended the CDC Halt Order once through January 31, 2021 in the Consolidated Appropriations Act; the CDC then issued a further administrative extension to March 31, 2021 relying on § 264(a).
- Plaintiffs (residential landlords/managers) sued, and the district court held the Halt Order exceeded the CDC’s statutory authority under § 264(a) and entered judgment for Plaintiffs.
- The government appealed and moved for an emergency stay pending appeal; the Sixth Circuit considered statutory interpretation de novo and denied the stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 42 U.S.C. § 264(a) authorizes a nationwide eviction moratorium | §264(a) only authorizes property sanitation-type measures, not eviction bans | §264(a)’s residual “other measures” authorizes broad measures (including eviction moratoria) to prevent disease spread | Held: §264(a) does not authorize a nationwide eviction moratorium; eviction bans are unlike listed sanitation measures and fall outside the statute |
| Whether the ejusdem generis canon limits “other measures” in §264(a) | Apply ejusdem generis: “other measures” limited to items similar to inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation | “Other measures” should be read broadly; later quarantine provisions show broader scope | Held: Court applied ejusdem generis; “other measures” controlled by the preceding sanitation-type list; later quarantine subsection is separate and does not broaden §264(a) |
| Whether Congress’s legislative extension (Consolidated Appropriations Act) ratified CDC’s statutory authority under §264(a) | Congressional extension did not clearly approve the CDC’s statutory interpretation and cannot create authority beyond §264(a)’s text | Congress’s extension acknowledged and effectively approved the CDC’s claimed §264(a) basis | Held: Extension did not constitute clear congressional ratification of the agency’s statutory interpretation; it merely extended the Order temporarily |
| Whether a stay pending appeal should be granted | Plaintiffs: government unlikely to succeed on merits; stay should be denied | Government: irreparable public-health and administrative harm justify a stay pending appeal | Held: Stay denied because government failed to show likelihood of success on merits (so other stay factors need not be reached) |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay-pending-appeal four-factor framework)
- Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001) (application of ejusdem generis canon)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982) (states’ broad power to regulate landlord-tenant relations)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (clear-statement principle when Congress alters federal-state balance)
- Solid Waste Agency v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) (declining broad federal encroachment on state powers)
- Indus. Union Dep’t, AFL-CIO v. API, 448 U.S. 607 (1980) (limits on assuming broad delegations of legislative power to agencies)
- Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. v. United States, 300 U.S. 297 (1937) (Congressional ratification of unauthorized official action doctrine)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (agency deference framework)
- Maryville Baptist Church, Inc. v. Beshear, 957 F.3d 610 (6th Cir. 2020) (stay standards in Sixth Circuit)
- Mich. Coal. of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150 (6th Cir. 1991) (stay standard requiring serious questions on the merits)