But, she said, she was looking at a narrower question: whether the Public Health Services Act empowered the CDC to enforce a nationwide removal moratorium.
Frederick also noted that the landlords in that case did not bear the burden of showing that an irreparable injury was likely and estimated that 433,000 cases and “thousands of deaths” could be attributed to the lifting of the ban.
Staying in the case would give the federal appeals court time to review the decision, Frederick said, adding that “there is no doubt that the landlords will suffer continued financial losses.”
Unlike Frederick, the appeals court thought the administration would eventually win the case.
Supreme Court rules
Lawyers for the landlords filed a motion for emergency relief in the Supreme Court on June 3, calling for a stay on Frederick’s decision to lift the moratorium on evictions — in essence letting the moratorium expire early.
Before the Supreme Court took action, the Biden administration said the eviction moratorium would end on July 31.
But here’s the catch: Although the court was only acting on an emergency request to stop the adjournment, its analysis included whether there was a “reasonable likelihood” that the four judges would eventually agree to review the merits of the case and if “irreparable damage” will result from refusal to stay.
Because it was an emergency request, there was no verbal argument, no briefing schedule, no reasoned opinion. Just an order denying relief.
Effect of Kavanaugh’s response
Kavanaugh’s vote is animating the Biden administration’s response.
Biden suggested that the Supreme Court had issued a reasoned opinion once and for all that the mandate was unconstitutional.
“The courts made it clear that the current adjournment was not constitutional,” Biden said on Tuesday.
The court did not do so; It simply denied the landlord’s request for emergency relief. But Biden was reading the writing on the wall. Kavanaugh suggested that after the termination, he thought Congress would have to act anew.
Because four other conservatives, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Connie Barrett, noted that they would be on the side of the landlords, and Kavanaugh said he was prepared to do so after the termination, it appears that the mandate is The extension can be in similar trouble.
Biden acknowledged that on Tuesday – pointing to a political motive designed to give Congress room for maneuver. “Till the time the trial goes on, the dispute will give “extra time” to the administration, he said.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on Wednesday responded to criticism from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party that Biden’s remarks on the constitutionality of the new adjournment could serve as a “self-fulfilling policy.”
“The president shares his desire, his commitment, and his interests in keeping renters and people in their homes, and that’s why he asked the CDC to see what legal paths were ahead, and yesterday’s announcement.” One was a reflection of that,” said Saki. “We don’t control the courts, we don’t know what they’ll do, we’re all aware of the Supreme Court’s decision at the end of June and what’s outlined in their decision at the end of June – it’s also going to be a temporary solution. and a long-term solution will require legislative action.”
CNN’s Kevin Liptak contributed to this report.