Emergency file

A group of Alabama real estate agents and landlords returned to the Supreme Court on Friday to ask the judge to block the Biden administration’s latest eviction ban during the COVID-19 pandemic. The request was made less than two months after the judge voted 5 to 4. Refusal to cancel the earlier suspension of deportationJudge Brett Kavanaugh provided a key vote in late June to retain the earlier version of the ban and explained that although he agreed with the challenger’s view that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exceeded its authority when issuing the ban, he voted Objection because the ban was originally scheduled to expire at the end of July.

Originally issued by Congress in early 2020, the eviction ban applies to all rental properties receiving federal assistance and is planned to last for 120 days. When the ban expired, the Trump administration implemented a broader ban that applied to all rental properties in the United States. Congress initially extended the ban for 30 days; the CDC subsequently extended it to July 2021.

Real estate agents and landlords went to federal court in Washington, DC, arguing that the CDC had no right to issue an injunction — they added that this cost the landlord billions of dollars in unpaid rent each month. In early May, Judge Dabney Friedrich agreed, but she shelved the ruling during the government’s appeal. The U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision on June 2 to retain Friedrich’s stay — and therefore the suspension — in place.

The challenger turned to the Supreme Court to seek an urgent ruling that would make Friedrich’s decision effective and thus lift the suspension. But as Kavanaugh joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberal justices of the court — Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — voted against the relief, The ban is still in effect during the last month.

Shortly before the suspension period expired in late July, the White House stated that the CDC would not further extend the suspension period. Instead, the White House called on Congress to take action. But on August 3, after Congress failed to do so, the CDC extended the suspension period for another three months. The new version of the ban applies to areas with high levels of community transmission of COVID-19—approximately 90% of U.S. counties.

The challenger returned to the court and On August 13, Friedrich rejected their request Lift the ban on the new version. “Indeed,” she wrote, “the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in this case strongly indicates that the CDC is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims.” However, she reasoned that because the new version of the suspension is consistent with her May’s The version covered by the order was “almost the same,” and her “hands were tied” because DC Circuit decided to shelve her earlier order.

In a brief order on Friday, DC circuit makes the suspension effective, Rejecting the challenger’s request to block the deportation injunction while the lawsuit continues, laying the foundation for the challenger to return to the Supreme Court later that day.

In their 40-page document, the challenger reiterated the same argument they made in June, noting that it was clearly supported by five court members: “Congress has never given the amazing powers that CDC now claims.” Instead, challenge. The authors observed that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cited “the rarely used regulations in 1944 as the authority for the ban on expulsion, which was previously limited to the sale of small sea turtles.”

In fact, the challenger emphasized that even though the Biden administration admitted that the ban lacked legal authority, it still extended the ban. Instead, the challenger attributed the government’s actions to the desire to “appease” members of Congress and “get as much rent assistance as possible” before the ban is blocked.

The challenger’s request was originally sent to Roberts, who was responsible for handling urgent appeals in the District of Columbia. Roberts acted quickly and instructed the Biden administration to submit a response before noon on Monday, August 23. Once the response and the challenger’s response appear, Roberts can act on the request alone, or more likely to take action in a high-profile case like this, and submit it to the collegiate panel.

This article is Originally published in Howe on the Court.