On narrow vote, Supreme Court leaves CDC ban on evictions in place

This vote is surprising to me, given that it's such a conservative court. I was under the impression that conservative philosophy had a lot to do with letting the free market do it's thing, without government interference, and disallowing evictions by landlords is precisely that, i.e., 'nanny-state-ism' or whatever the denigrating term-de-jour is by the right

Now, as a Democrat/Liberal, of course I support it, it's the compassionate thing to do, (noting that apparently it's only for a month ) but I would also support a moratorium to disallow banks to foreclose on landlords who can't pay mortgages due to their failure to evict and replace tenants with paying rentors.

I'm wondering why that side of the equation isn't being addressed?

Conservatives, what say you?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...771b7e-d92d-11eb-8fb8-aea56b785b00_story.html

The Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 on Tuesday night to leave in place the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s ban on evictions, imposed to combat the coronavirus pandemic and prevent homelessness.

The ban has just been extended another month, until the end of July, and the Biden administration said it will end then.

A group of landlords, real estate companies and real estate trade associations in Alabama and Georgia convinced U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich in the spring that the CDC lacked authority to impose the moratorium.

But Friedrich stayed her order to allow appeals to continue. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit kept it in place, saying it believed the government was likely to prevail.

 

Even though it may sound cold, the court should not be making determinations based upon what they believe to be compassionate. It is their role to determine what is the legal position and it does appear the CDC lacked the legal authority to impose this on landlords. I believe Kavanaugh's position was reasonable:

"“Because the CDC plans to end the moratorium in only a few weeks, on July 31, and because those few weeks will allow for additional and more orderly distribution of the congressionally appropriated rental assistance funds, the stay should remain in place."

 

I think it is a bad decision. The reason is that I don't think government should decide who can make a living and who cannot. It shouldn't choose winners and losers. It shouldn't transfer one person's misfortune to a another person. Equality requires that government treat everyone the same.

Since it was government that caused a lot of renters to lose their jobs (also terribly wrong) there is a case to be made for government to make reparations to the victims of those actions. Government should then subsidize the rents (terribly wrong again) not cause the landlord to lose income without being able to rent to a tenant who can and will pay.

These are all unintended consequences of government actions. The solution is simple. Never make laws that don't treat everyone the same. Bad decision based on emotion rather than common sense.

 

I cannot agree with this decision. No way the CDC has this sort of authority.

There is going to be such a tidal wave of evictions and foreclosures.

I do not think anyone has thought about the consequences when that happens.

 

Can't say I know much about this case, or which direction I lean with respect to the decision. However, I think recent SC decisions point into a certain direction the court is taking.

There is the liberal wing of the court with the three Dem appointed judges, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer.
Second, we have the ultra-conservative wing with Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch, no surprise ever in terms of how they will vote.
Third, there is the middle, kind of swing vote group, with Roberts, Barrett and Kavanaugh, with Roberts probably leaning most liberal, and Barrett more on the staunch conservative side.

I think it is fair to say that Trump voters didn't get the activist, ultra-conservative SC they were hoping for.

 

I do not agree at all that Gorsuch is ultra-conservative. I would put Barrett in that category before Gorsuch

 

But it did, using your words, chose winners and losers with the lockdowns. When businesses like restaurants were closed, they were prohibited from making money. They couldn't pay their rents.

 

Conservatives don't want activist judges. They want Constitutional judges. It is not the role of the bench to legislate.

 

this is the govt stepping in on the rights of property owners. This is just another example of how powerful we have allowed DC to become

 

Who wants to get a betting pool going on how many times the "moratorium" will be extended? If it EVER expires there will be a tsunami of evictions from sea to shining sea....particularly in large, Democratic controlled metropolitan areas. It should prove to be "interesting", as every action has an opposite but equal reaction.

 

It has been extended a half a dozen times, I do not think it will be again.

 

No doubt about it. With inappropriate behavior, government takes on unintended consequences. If government wants to subsidize laid off workers' rents they should do that. Requiring the landlords to pay for it is not OK. Landlords didn't cause the problem, government did. Apparently we agree.

 

The housing system is F'ed either way. By which I mean: its designed to keep people renting and prevent them from buying. According to another article posted on PF recently, some very large, very shady firms (like a 'security' aka mercenary company, for example) have been buying up large amounts of rental properties during the pandemic, very likely a result of the landlords selling because their tennants aren't paying the rent those landlords use to pay the mortgage. Farmland is also being bought up in unprecedented amounts by companies owned by the ultra rich like Gates and Buffett. We're going to emerge from this 'pandemic' with a lot more of the things we need (housing, food, medicine, power, water) being owned and controlled by the financial and political elite, who stand to not only further increase their profit margins relative to -and at the expense of- we the common folk, but also further increase their manipulative power over our politics and government. Its not legal for the government to force the little guy to sell to the big guy, but it is apparently legal for the government to shut down the little guy's business who then must necessarily sell to the big guy anyway. The result is the same either way. At a certain point we're going to have to start asking ourselves- what is the meaningful difference between a 'renter society' and a slave population?

 

I know several landlords that applied for and received government assistance. It was an unprecented situation and it was evident that the government (not great at 'business' under any administration) was in over its head. They did pick winners and losers and we can agree that was wrong. Help for all or none. But as I pointed out, there was assistance available to businesses which could not survive - landlords were one of them.

 

Of course it is compassionate and the right thing to do, as long as the burden doesn't fall on you. Its easy to view property owners as the villain, but they still have to pay mortgage, property tax, business license, maintenance, etc. Programs like these are nothing more than legalized theft. The right thing to do is have the renter show a genuine need and provide temporary assistance. Some can't work while some won't.

I own rental property and am very lucky to have stable tenants.

How about you opening your home to someone facing homelessness?

 

Not much, if we enable ourselves to be slaves to being workers for these mega owners of finance. The key is for more and more people to own wealth and that's not done by a tax system, but by financial education(ie: How do we make the same investments they make, how do we get our feet in the game.) If the Buffet's of the world were honest for a minute, they'd be like "Don't hate the player, join the game."

That's what we've got to do, we need a middle class uprising where the people gain access to these markets and enrich themselves. Because the government doesn't have the power to enrich the marketplace.

 

Good to know.

 

The Cares Act Assistance Program provided rent assistance to the tenant. If the renter chose not to use those funds for rent, the landlord is SOL and has no recourse because there is an eviction hold. Fortunately all my tenants continued to work throughout this pandemic, but I know at least one other landlord that lost his shirt from multiple tenants not paying their rent. Bank now owns his properties.

 

Yeah, and something has to be done about that, too.

 

If you had read my post, it stated:

Now, as a Democrat/Liberal, of course I support it, it's the compassionate thing to do, (noting that apparently it's only for a month ) but I would also support a moratorium to disallow banks to foreclose on landlords who can't pay mortgages due to their failure to evict and replace tenants with paying rentors.

Did you not read that part?

Moreover, one does not create public policy on anecdote, so your question isn't answerable.

I've been homeless, and I own a home, outright.

 

"Legislating from the bench"

Definition: Rulings you disagree with.

 

Yes, but delaying foreclosure does not make the debt go away. Many landlords rely on that money for income.

I have also been homeless and am very fortunate that my rental property has stable tenants.

 

Nope. This is an easy example. Clearly the CDC did not have the legal authority to do what they did but the liberal activist justices sided with them anyway.

 

Hmmmm

Kavanaugh concurrence
As he often does, Kavanaugh wrote to explain why he voted to allow the moratorium to remain in place. On the one hand, he said he agreed with the District Court that the CDC exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a nationwide moratorium.
But, he said, because the CDC has said it will end the moratorium in a few weeks he would allow it to remain in place. He said the extra weeks will "allow for additional and more orderly distribution of the congressionally appropriated rental assistance funds."
Kavanaugh made clear however, that if the government were to extend the moratorium past July 31, it would need "specific congressional authorization."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/29/politics/supreme-court-eviction-moratorium-cdc/index.html

So it's "well it's already there and about to expire so why rock the boat". Nothing about the the power of the government to force a private citizen to allow another private citizen to use their property without just compensation. And when you transfer it to the banks you are only transferring it to the private citizen depositors and investors there. Doesn't change the fact that some is being disallowed their use of their property so someone else can use it without compensating the owner.

You REALLY think that is what we should be doing in the United States? What if the government sent someone to your house with an order you let them live in one of your bedrooms and not pay rent to do so.

 

And Kavanaugh copped out with the "well it's going to stop soon just don't do it again" plea.