Posted on 08/13/2021 8:04:18 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday lifted New York state’s ban on residential evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, handing a victory to a group of small landlords that challenged a moratorium that had been slated to expire on Aug. 31.
The justices granted an emergency request by the landlords to lift the ban on eviction proceedings while litigation over the dispute continues.
The Court ruled 6 to 3 in the case.
A lower court in June rejected landlords’ argument that the moratorium violated their rights to due process of law and free speech under the U.S. Constitution.
Some landlords in the state could still face another barrier.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Aug. 3 issued a new 60-day federal moratorium on residential evictions to combat the spread of COVID-19, focused on jurisdictions with high infection rates.
The New York dispute centers on a state law passed last December that halts all new or pending evictions if tenants submit a declaration that they are experiencing financial hardship or that moving would pose a pandemic-related health risk.
The law similarly protects small landlords from foreclosure.
The five New York landlords sued various officials to stop the law’s enforcement after legislators extended its May expiration to the end of August.
The landlords said they have been “pushed to the brink of disaster” even as many other pandemic-related restrictions have eased.
Though all of their tenants stopped paying rent – some even before the pandemic – they said they have been unable to proceed with evictions.
The suit argues that the New York eviction law violates their right to due process under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment because it allows a tenant’s declaration of hardship to deny them legal recourse.
The law also requires landlords to provide the declaration form to the tenants, which they said compels them to deliver a message they do not support in violation of their First Amendment right to free speech.
Writing in dissent, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer said the burdens on the landlords must be balanced with the hardships of tenants who “will now be forced to face eviction proceedings earlier than expected.”
He added that in this case, “I would not second-guess politically accountable officials’ determination of how best to ‘guard and protect’ the people of New York.”
Reuters contributed to this report.
The article only stated one from the 3 who voted to retain the eviction ban — Justice Breyer, but I think we can safely guess that Sotomayor and Kagan joined him.
Joseph Stolen ain’t gonna like this.
Not nationwide?
I suspect millions of people are not going to like it if this goes into effect in every state which I think it will now that a precedent has been established.
Appears those renters should have saved some of that free government money ($3600/month).
RE: Not nationwide?
It’s a start. If it’s illegal in New York, I don’t see why it’s not illegal in other states.
Agreed. They are the USSC, not the NYSSC. But again it is unreasonable for the press or media to ask any technical questions. They just report the pre-approved releases from central planning.
Wth Kavanaugh? It was going to expire in a couple weeks anyway.
Renter income was higher and yet they did not pay rent. There were actually getting more money than when they entered into the rental agreement but refused to keep their rent up to date. No sympathy.
When the SC sides with Liberals, it seems to be LAW nationwide, but when the SC sides with Conservatives, it seems to only affect the party that sued.
This does not jive with the report from yesterday that said the only thing lifted was the tenant being able to file and unproven declaration in order to stop and eviction.
Divided Supreme Court sides with landlords, lifts part of New York eviction moratorium
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3984542/posts
So which is it? Is this a different decision?
There two different versions of what this means floating around out there. I believe the tenant can still challenge based on covid crap. But they have to do it a different way. They may have to prove what they are claiming now. But they can still get out of it by claiming at an eviction hearing that they are affected by covid. This is very confusing.
Yep. Hard to be sympathetic.
They have to go to court and prove that they are unable to pay their rent that they are NOT employed and are NOT collecting enhanced unemployment which has been enhanced so people will be able to pay their rent!!!
Which would mean that the title of this article is very misleading. Thanks.
Which would mean that the title of this article is very misleading
_______________________________________________________________________
Now *there’s* something that hardly ever happens 🙄
There is no longer a federal, nationwide ban.
This addresses a specific set of complaints for a State that opted to extend after the federal ban expired.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.