> The Supreme Court in late August rejected the last in a series of eviction moratorium extensions by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Think what you will about the eviction moratorium, but why is it in the purview of the CDC to pass a rule that prevents evictions and under what authority? What does this have to do with disease control or prevention? I read through their charter [0] and it's weird that they have the authority to do this and no one questions it.
Not to comment on authority but from a pandemic perspective it’s probably better to keep low income people in their apartment than the alternative. They either end up having to move in with friends, start using shelters, or have to move to other places of the country. All those situation increase the spread of the virus a lot more than… staying in your own house.
On top of society benefits, once someone becomes homeless, it’s a lot harder for them to get a job and re-integrate society / working world.
I am fine with that as long as the government took over responsibility for paying the tenant’s rent. And not in a convoluted, bureaucratic mess kind of way. The payment needs to be on time and hassle free.
I know hotel owners that have people staying in the rooms for free for over a year causing damage and they cannot get rid of them.
Right now, what has happened is politicians found a way to dump the costs homeless/poor people onto select businesses/land owners rather than all taxpayers.
In usual cases, I agree that landlords have to bear the risk. In case of a pandemic where we need mass coordinated action, I prefer the Government to coordinate the response.
There are certain situations where otherwise important aspects like "individual freedom" and "individual are not really useful. Pandemic is one of them. War is another.
According to the Supreme Court's summary [0], the CDC was arguing it derived its authority primarily from US Code 42 section 264(a) [1]
> The Surgeon General, with the approval of the Secretary, is authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession. For purposes of carrying out and enforcing such regulations, the Surgeon General may provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary.
There is also 42 CFR 70.2 [2]
> Whenever the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determines that the measures taken by health authorities of any State or possession (including political subdivisions thereof) are insufficient to prevent the spread of any of the communicable diseases from such State or possession to any other State or possession, he/she may take such measures to prevent such spread of the diseases as he/she deems reasonably necessary, including inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, and destruction of animals or articles believed to be sources of infection.
The main legal arguement is weather the second sentence of 264(a) should be read as expanding or restricting the authority granted by the first one. Even without that question, it is not clear that the first sentence on its own should be interpreted so broadly as to allow an eviction moratorium.
It is also weird to say that no one challanged it. It has been a controversial action from the start. And has been succesfully challenged in the courts.
They move out and go live somewhere else, usually. This might sometimes lead to spread of the disease, if the eviction just so happens to happen during the time when the tenants are infectious. But, as it happens, there are other ways these tenants might spread the disease, like going to work, meeting family or friends (typically the very same ones they will move in with when they get evicted), eating at restaurants, riding a bus, or generally living their normal life. These are much more likely to contribute to spread, and, as does not require mention, these activities haven’t been burdened with year+ long moratorium. The idea that evictions have anything beyond superficial impact on spread of the disease just beggars belief.
There is centuries of legal precedent about the ability to quarantine and take other appropriate measures to prevent the spread of infectious disease. Noting...I'm not an expert, but my partner lives in this world and I have learned an enormous amount over the yearas because it is profoundly interesting to me.
Public health laws predate not just the constitution but the bible...the Romans had sanitary building codes, quarantine authority, etc. Protecting public welfare and safety, i.e., public health, is one of the duties of the state and until this pandemic very few actions taken in support of that have been questioned...especially by the courts. Historically, the first actions the US took related to public health came in the yellow fever epidemic in the late 1700s. That include banning trade between New York and Philadelphia, moving the seat of federal government, quarantining whole cities.
To your point, this power to quarantine isn't strictly part of the CDC charter but it is a power of the CDC workforce...specifically the Public Health Commissioned Corps (c.f. the Surgeon General). However, those actions occur through the CDC or the US public health service or the Department of Health and Human Services. Why the Trump administration chose to have the CDC issue the moratorium I'm not entirely clear. However, what you linked to is not the charter of the CDC, it is the charter of an advisory committee. Historically, for process reasons related to statutory authority and management of the Public Health Commissioned Corps, quarantine orders have come from the CDC when done for people at borders, the USDA for animals, and HHS for inside of the US.
But really what you want to know is about statutory authority...the Surgeon General, typically acting through the CDC, has clear authority at the border, and would seem to be reasonably assumed to have authority in the US. Quoting from USC 42.6A.II.G.264
>The Surgeon General, with the approval of the Secretary, is authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession. For purposes of carrying out and enforcing such regulations, the Surgeon General may provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary.
Does that mean that because it was done by the CDC rather than the surgeon general it is invalid? Maybe...but clearly congress sought to give reasonably broad authority. Does restrictions on commerce via eviction moratoriums specifically fall under 'such regulations as in his judgement are necessary to prevent ...spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries? Maybe...I would say it does and traditionally courts say it does.
Quoting a source here "The only successful attacks on such exercises of state police power have been based on federal preemption of state laws that restricted interstate commerce or on laws that were mere shams for racial discrimination. Yet even interference with interstate commerce is not always fatal to health regulations. *If a state regulation is substantially related to health and safety, the Supreme Court will uphold it. This is true even if the regulation interferes with interstate commerce, such as would result from a cordon sanitaria in which all travel is forbidden. From vaccinations to quarantines, laws enacted to protect society have been upheld even when they force individuals to sacrifice liberty and privacy.*
Rent is a form of commerce, it is insanity that this was meaningfully challenged by the SCOTUS. It has never, in history of this country's, been meaningfully challenged. The government's responsibility is to the public health...not landlord's profits.
Think what you will about the eviction moratorium, but why is it in the purview of the CDC to pass a rule that prevents evictions and under what authority? What does this have to do with disease control or prevention? I read through their charter [0] and it's weird that they have the authority to do this and no one questions it.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/charter.html