Supreme Court Partially Blocks New York Eviction Moratorium: Read It For Yourself
The Supreme Court ruled to partially block the New York eviction moratorium in an unsigned order that drew a dissent from Justices Breyer, Sotomayer, and Kagan.
A divided Supreme Court on Thursday night granted a request from a group of New York landlords to lift part of a state moratorium on residential evictions put in place at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The ruling in Chrysafis v. Marks came three days after a federal district judge in Washington, D.C., heard oral argument in a challenge to the Biden administration’s newly enacted federal moratorium on evictions in most of the country.
The state moratorium allows tenants in New York to avoid eviction by declaring that they have suffered “financial hardship” as a result of the pandemic. New York enacted the moratorium in 2020 and has extended it through Aug. 31, 2021.
The landlords went to federal court in New York to challenge the moratorium, arguing that it violates their right to due process by allowing tenants to put eviction proceedings on hold without any proof that the pandemic has affected them and without giving landlords a chance to rebut their assertions. A federal district court dismissed their challenge, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit turned down the landlords’ request to put the moratorium on hold while they appeal.
The landlords turned to the Supreme Court at the end of July, telling the justices that “the courthouse door has been barred to New York’s landlords” for over a year. And when New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) recently declared that the state’s “disaster emergency” is over, and the economy is reopening, they contended, the state cannot point to the pandemic to justify maintaining its ban on evictions.
Opposing the landlords’ request to block the state moratorium, New York pointed to a decision in late June in which a divided Supreme Court allowed a prior version of the federal eviction moratorium to remain in place for one month. In that case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh provided the key fifth vote to keep the moratorium in place. He wrote that the Centers for Disease Control had exceeded its authority when it extended the nationwide moratorium, but he joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s three liberal justices in voting to maintain the moratorium because it was scheduled to expire on July 31.
Shortly after that federal moratorium expired, the CDC enacted a new, 60-day moratorium on evictions in areas of the country hardest hit by the Delta variant. The legal challenge to the new federal moratorium may reach the justices soon.
Read the Supreme Court’s order on the New York eviction moratorium for yourself here:
New York eviction moratorium
Didn’t we used to have people whose job it was to wander over to another building with some donuts, sit down with some other people, and begin a short question with the word “hypothetically…”?Report
Currently the unemployment rate is 5.4%, which is about average for the last 50 years. And the job openings rate is at an all-time high. Look at this. It’s nuts:
https://www.bls.gov/charts/job-openings-and-labor-turnover/job-openings-unemployment-beveridge-curve.htm
There’s really nothing which points to the US currently being in the kind of unprecedented economic crisis that would justify this kind of unprecedented measure. Even during the pandemic, aggregate personal income spiked due to stimulus and unemployment bonus. It’s only just returned to the pre-pandemic trend:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PI
Democrats are acting like it’s 2010, and it just isn’t. Nothing about the current situation even vaguely resembles the economic situation in 2010.Report
1969Report
People aren’t getting evicted or threatened with it for their current circumstances. They are going to get tossed for being out of work do 6-12 months and not paying rent during that time. There is assistance out ther for them to hand checks to landlords, but as we have discussed elsewhere that assistance is being very slow rolled by the states. Plus turning 6-11 millions renters (depending on who you believe) on to the streets won’t help tamp down the delta surge, which in some places may well re-tank local economies.
Keeping the moratorium in place at least until the rent support flows is a way better option in so many ways.Report
But this isn’t about the moratorium specifically, but rather about landlords being denied any opportunity to prove a case.
I mean, if Don Jr. Is taking advantage of the moratorium to avoid paying rent (because the Trumps are that kind of people), shouldn’t his landlord be allowed to present evidence that Don is not suffering?Report
They are not being denied an opportunity permanently. And what case are they so hot to prove? That people put out of work or otherwise economically damaged by a global pandemic couldn’t pay rent? That requires forcing further injury to tenants why exactly?Report
I have no idea, but I think the court is right that refusing to even hear a case is wrong, whether it’s temporary or not
We do need to get over this idea that landlords are sitting on vast cash reserves that allow them to whether this better than tenants.Report
PS I get your point about landlord assistance not being distributed and I agree with you that it’s on the state governments to get it out there, but they aren’t, and perhaps if landlords could leverage the courts, the states would feel the pressure to get their feces consolidated.Report
Landlords aren’t sitting on great cash hordes.
Tenants are generally not sitting on great cash horses either. Which leads to a fundamental economic problem. Evicting people won’t solve that probables short term and may create additional significant economic and public health problems medium to long term.
And frankly – what good is a hearing in eviction if no decision can be rendered? It wastes court, landlord and tenant resources and doesn’t move the ball any.
Finally, I don’t see a groundswell of landlords leaning on state politicians now, when doing so would potentially get them relief. Being able to go to a hearing that results in no further action isn’t likely to changes that.Report
“Great Cash Horses” sounds like something our 0.01% class would have…
My whole read on this is that according to the law, if a landlord can get a hearing and prove their case, they can get an eviction. And they point was that they could not get a hearing. So an action would be possible, if they could get a hearing.
Do I have that wrong?Report
I posted a comment with two links and it got held for moderation. I vaguely remember someone saying that comments can include up to two links without getting sent to moderation; is the limit still one after all?
I did not edit the comment, and I don’t think it has any naughty words.Report
I freed it! (And, yeah, that’s what I thought the rule was.)Report
The current setting is “Hold a comment in the queue if it contains 2 or more links.”Report
I will do what I can to free them as I see them, then.Report