¹ Anton Pak et al., Economic Consequences of the COVID-19 Outbreak: The Need for Epidemic Preparedness, 8 Frontiers 1, 3 (2020); How the Law Fails Tenants (And not Just During a Pandemic), 68 UCLA L. Rev. Disc. 146, 148.

² Emily Benfer et al., the COVID-19 Eviction Crisis: An Estimated 30-40 Million People in America Are at Risk 1 (2020).

³ Id.

⁴ Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent Further Spread of COVID-19. 85 Fed. Reg. 55,292 (Sept. 4, 2020).

⁵ See Alabama Ass’n of Realtors, No. 20-CV-3377 (DLF), 2021 WL 1779282, at *3, appeal dismissed, No. 21-5093, 2021 WL 4057718 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 3, 2021). Compare Tiger Lily, LLC v. United States Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 525 F. Supp. 3d 850, 853 (W.D. Tenn.), aff’d, 5 F.4th 666 (6th Cir. 2021) (holding that the federal eviction moratorium exceeded the CDC’s statutory authority), with Terkel v. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, 521 F. Supp. 3d 662 (E.D. Tex.), appeal dismissed, 15 F.4th 683 (5th Cir. 2021) (holding that the CDC’s “nationwide moratorium on evicting specified tenants was not within the limited powers that the Constitution grants to the federal government, namely, its authority to legislate as necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states.”). But cf. Brown v. Azar, 497 F. Supp. 3d 1270 (N.D. Ga. 2020), aff’d sub nom. Brown v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 4 F.4th 1220 (11th Cir. 2021) (denying preliminary injunction after finding that plaintiffs were unable to establish “substantial likelihood of success on the merits as to claims that CDC’s federal eviction moratorium was unconstitutional or exceeded CDC’s statutory and regulatory authority.”).

⁶ Alabama Ass’n of Realtors v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 141 S. Ct. 2485 (2021).

⁷ Complaint, Alabama Ass’n of Realtors, 2021 WL 1779282 [hereinafter Complaint].

⁸ Alabama Ass’n of Realtors, 2021 WL 1779282, at *10; Alabama Ass’n of Realtors v. United States Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., (No. 20-CV-3377-DLF), 2021 WL 1946376, at *4-*5 (D.D.C. May 14, 2021).

⁹ See Alabama Ass’n of Realtors v. United States Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., (No. 1-20-CV-0337-DLF), 2021 WL 2221646 (D.C. Cir. June 2, 2021); Alabama Ass’n of Realtors v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 141 S. Ct. 2320 (2021).

¹⁰ Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions in Communities with Substantial or High Transmission of COVID-10 to Prevent Further Spread of COVID-19, 86 Fed. Reg. 43244 (Aug. 3, 2021).

¹¹ Emergency Motion to Enforce the Supreme Court’s Ruling and to Vacate the Stay Pending Appeal, Alabama Ass’n of Realtors, 2021 WL 1779282, (D.D.C. Aug. 4, 2020), ECF No. 67.

¹² Alabama Ass’n of Realtors v. United States Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., (No. 20-CV-3377-DLF), 2021 WL 3577367 (D.D.C. Aug. 13, 2021).

¹³ Alabama Ass’n of Realtors v. United States Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., (No. 1:20-CV-03377-DLF), 2021 WL 3721431 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 20, 2021).

¹⁴ Alabama Assn. of Realtors, 141 S. Ct.

¹⁵ Id. at 2485.

¹⁶ 15 U.S.C.S. § 9001-141 (2020).

¹⁷ 15 U.S.C.S. § 9058.

¹⁸ Id. This eviction moratorium expired on July 24, 2020. Id.

¹⁹ See Ann O’Connell, Emergency Bans on Evictions and Other Tenant Protections Related to Coronavirus, KFF (Nov. 20, 2020), https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/emergency-bans-on-evictions-and-other-tenant-protections-related-to-coronavirus.html.

²⁰ Id.

²¹ Id. As of September 1, 2020, only twenty states maintained valid moratoriums on evictions. Id.

²² Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent Further Spread of COVID-19, 85 Fed. Reg. 55292 (Sept. 4, 2020).

²³ Id.

²⁴ Id. at 55293.

²⁵ Id.

²⁶ See, e.g., 86 Fed. Reg. 42346-67.

²⁷ Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub. L. 116-260 §502, 134 Stat. 2078-2079 (2021).

²⁸ Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent Further Spread of COVID-19, 86 Fed. Reg. 8020 (); Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent Further Spread of COVID-19, 86 Fed. Reg. 16731 (March 31, 2021); Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent Further Spread of COVID-19, 86 Fed. Reg. 34010 (June 28, 2021).

²⁹ 86 Fed. Reg. 43244.

³⁰ Id.

³¹ U.S. Ctrs. for Disease Control and Prevention, HHS/CDC Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent Further Spread of COVID-19: Frequently Asked Questions (Oct. 9, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/eviction-moratoria-order-faqs.pdf. The CDC released the Guidance Document in response to some early concerns about implementation, given the breadth of the Order.

³² Id.

³³ Alabama Ass’n of Realtors, 2021 WL 1779282, at *3 (stating that, prior to May 2021, “at least six courts ha[d] considered various statutory and constitutional challenges to the CDC Order”).

³⁴ Id.

³⁵ Complaint.

³⁶ Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and In Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Alabama Ass’n of Realtors, 2021 WL 1779282.

³⁷ Id.

³⁸ Alabama Ass’n of Realtors, 2021 WL 1779282.

³⁹ Alabama Ass’n of Realtors v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 141 S. Ct. 2485.

⁴⁰ See, e.g., Terkel, 521 F. Supp. 3d 662 (holding that the Order was unconstitutional as it exceeded federal powers under the Commerce Clause).

⁴¹ 42 U.S.C. § 264(a).

⁴² See also Alabama Ass’n of Realtors, 2021 WL 1779282, at *1, 4.

⁴³ Complaint at 13 ¶ 55.

⁴⁴ 42 U.S.C. § 264(a). See also id. at *8 (citing Tiger Lily, 992 F.3d at 524) (noting that “the quarantine provisions in § 264(b)–(d) are structurally separate from those in § 264(a),” as “provisions in § 264(b)–(d) restrict individual liberty interests, while § 264(a) is concerned exclusively with property interests.”)

⁴⁵ 42 U.S.C. § 264(a).

⁴⁶ Alabama Ass’n of Realtors, 2021 WL 1779282, at *5-8.

⁴⁷ Id. at *5.

⁴⁸ Id. at *5 (quoting Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 842 (1984)).

⁴⁹ Id. (quoting Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Cmty. of Or. v. Jewell, 830 F.3d 552, 558 (D.C. Cir. 2016)).

⁵⁰ Id.

⁵¹ Id. (quoting Tiger Lily, 992 F.3d at 522-23).

⁵² Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Skyworks, Ltd. v. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, 524 F. Supp. 3d 745, 758 (N.D. Ohio 2021), order clarified, No. 5:20-CV-2407, 2021 WL 2228676 (N.D. Ohio June 3, 2021), appeal dismissed, No. 21-3563, 2021 WL 4305879 (6th Cir. Sept. 21, 2021), and appeal dismissed, No. 21-3443, 2021 WL 4352384 (6th Cir. Sept. 3, 2021)).

⁵³ Id. at *6-7. The District Court emphasized that a “broad reading of § 264(a)’s first sentence would render the second sentence superfluous,” thereby violating the “‘cardinal principle of statutory construction that [courts] must give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute.’” Id. at *7. Furthermore, the District Court referenced how “the canon of constitutional avoidance instructs that a court shall construe a statute to avoid serious constitutional problems unless such a construction is contrary to the clear intent of Congress.” Id. Finally, the District Court utilized the major questions doctrine to reiterate that “courts ‘expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance.’” Id.

⁵⁴ Id. at *8 (quoting FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 159, (2000)).

⁵⁵ Id. (quotations omitted).

⁵⁶ Id. at *9 (citing Tiger Lily, 992 F.3d at 524.) (“[M]ere congressional acquiescence in the CDC’s assertion that the [CDC Order] was supported by 42 U.S.C. § 264(a) does not make it so.”)

⁵⁷ Id. at *9-10 “In a case reviewing agency action, summary judgment ‘serves as the mechanism for deciding, as a matter of law, whether the agency action is supported by the administrative record and otherwise consistent with the APA standard of review.’” Id. at *3 (quoting Sierra Club v. Mainella, 459 F. Supp. 2d 76, 90 (D.D.C. 2006)).

⁵⁸ Id. at *9-10.

⁵⁹ Alabama Ass’n of Realtors, 2021 WL 1946376.

⁶⁰ Id. at *1 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 427 (2009); Cuomo v. U.S. Nuclear Regul. Comm’n, 772 F.2d 972, 978 (D.C. Cir. 1985)).

⁶¹ Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Nken, 556 U.S. at 433-43 (2009)).

⁶² Id. at *2-4.

⁶³ Id. at *4 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Wash. Metro. Area Transit Comm’n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 844 (D.C. Cir. 1977)) (citing Cigar Ass’n of Am. v. FDA, 317 F. Supp. 3d 555, 560 (D.D.C. 2018)).

⁶⁴ Id. at *4 (finding that Government raised serious a legal question on the merits, "[g]iven the diverging rulings of these courts and the significance of the CDC Order”).

⁶⁵ Id. at *4-5.

⁶⁶ Id.

⁶⁷ Id. at *5.

⁶⁸ Id. at *4.

⁶⁹ Id. at *5. The District Court granted a stay because Government made “a sufficiently strong showing as to the remaining stay factors,” even if the Government was unable to make a strong showing of success on the merits under the first factor of the test. Id.

⁷⁰ Alabama Ass’n of Realtors, 2021 WL 2221646, at *1.

⁷¹ Id. at *1-5.

⁷² Id. at *1-3.

⁷³ Id. at *3-4.

⁷⁴ Id.

⁷⁵ Alabama Ass’n of Realtors, 141 S. Ct. at 2492 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (comparing Alabama Assn. of Realtors, 2021 WL 2221646, at *2, with Tiger Lily, 5 F.4th at 669–670.)

⁷⁶ Alabama Ass’n of Realtors, 2021 WL 1779282, at *5-8.

⁷⁷ Chevron, 467 U.S. at 865. See also Kimberly Robinson, High Court Could Take First Step to Chevron Doctrine’s Demise, Bloomberg (Mar. 28, 2019), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/high-court-could-take-first-step-to-chevron-doctrines-demise; Daniel Shedd & Todd Garvey, Cong. Research Serv., R43203, Chevron Deference: Court Treatment of Agency Interpretations of Ambiguous Statutes 9 (2013).

⁷⁸ See, e.g., Brown, 2020 WL 6364310, at *9.

⁷⁹ Kimberly Robinson, High Court Could Take First Step to Chevron Doctrine’s Demise, Bloomberg (Mar. 28, 2019), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/high-court-could-take-first-step-to-chevron-doctrines-demise; Daniel Shedd & Todd Garvey, Cong. Research Serv., R43203, Chevron Deference: Court Treatment of Agency Interpretations of Ambiguous Statutes 9 (2013).

⁸⁰ Alabama Ass’n of Realtors, 141 S. Ct. 2320; Alabama Assn. of Realtors, 141 S. Ct. 2485.

⁸¹ Alabama Ass’n of Realtors, 141 S. Ct. 2320.

⁸² Id. at 2320-21 (Kavaugh, J., concurring) (“I agree with the District Court and the applicants that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exceeded its existing statutory authority by issuing a nationwide eviction moratorium. See Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U. S. 302, 324 (2014)”).

⁸³ Id. at 2321 (“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, I vote at this time to deny the application to vacate the District Court’s stay of its order.”)

⁸⁴ Emergency Motion to Enforce the Supreme Court’s Ruling and to Vacate the Stay Pending Appeal, Alabama Ass’n of Realtors, 2021 WL 3577367.

⁸⁵ Alabama Ass’n of Realtors, 2021 WL 3577367, at *5-6.

⁸⁶ Id. at *6-7.

⁸⁷ Alabama Ass’n of Realtors, 2021 WL 3721431.

⁸⁸ Alabama Assn. of Realtors, 141 S. Ct. 2485.

⁸⁹ Alabama Ass’n of Realtors, 141 S. Ct. at 2320 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring).

⁹⁰ Alabama Assn. of Realtors, 141 S. Ct. at 2486.

⁹¹ Id. at 2486.

⁹² Id.

⁹³ Id.

⁹⁴ Id. at 2489 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 324 (2014) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. at 160)).

⁹⁵ Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 264(a); 42 C.F.R. § 70.2).

⁹⁶ Id. at 2489-90.

⁹⁷ Id.

⁹⁸ Id. at 2489.

⁹⁹ Id. at 2488.

¹⁰⁰ Id. at 2489-90.

¹⁰¹ Id.

¹⁰² Id. at 2489.

¹⁰³ See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-43.

¹⁰⁴ Id. at 2490-94 (Breyer, J. dissenting).

¹⁰⁵ Id. at 2490. The Dissent emphasized that the Supreme Court “‘may not vacate a stay entered by a [lower] court … unless that court clearly and ‘demonstrably’ erred in its ap- plication of ‘accepted standards.’” Id. (citing Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott, 571 U. S. 1061 (2013) (Scalia, J., concurring in denial of application to vacate stay) (quoting Western Airlines, Inc. v. Teamsters, 480 U. S. 1301, 1305 (1987) (O’Connor, J., in chambers))).

¹⁰⁶ Alabama Ass’n of Realtors, 2021 WL 2221646.

¹⁰⁷ Alabama Assn. of Realtors, 141 S. Ct.at 2491-92 (Breyer, J. dissenting).

¹⁰⁸ The Dissent argued that the balance of equities favored a stay given that irreparable harm could come from increased COVID-19 transmission rates, while partial loss of rental funds could be mitigated, especially when Congress had appropriated funds to allow for financial recovery of rent. Id. at 2492-93. The Dissent also stressed that “the public interest is not favored by the spread of disease or a court’s second-guessing of the CDC’s judgment.” Id. at 2493-94.

¹⁰⁹ Id. at 2490.

¹¹⁰ Id. at 2489-90.

¹¹¹ Id.

¹¹² Id. at 2490.