Breaking: Federal Court Declares Unconstitutional CDC Eviction Moratorium

Reason ^ | 2/25/2021 | Josh Blackman

[1Old Pro]

The federal government thus claims authority to suspend residential evictions for any reason, including an agency's views on "fairness." Id. at 53:11-23. Given the open-textured nature of the relevant constitutional text, "the question of congressional power under the Commerce Clause 'is necessarily one of degree.'" United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 566 (1995) (quoting NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 37 (1937)). Reasonable minds may differ given the lack of "precise formulations." Id. at 567.

But here, after analyzing the relevant precedents, the court concludes that the federal government's Article I power to regulate interstate commerce and enact laws necessary and proper to that end does not include the power to impose the challenged eviction moratorium.

[eastforker]

here is more

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3937912/posts

[Trump.Deplorable]

But you would still need a court to do that

In some states you still have to honor that lease

I saw rental properties, duplexes sell cheap in the fall because the landlords wanted out and the tenants were dead beats. Probably a 100K less then what they should have sold for, whoever bought it has to house those deadbeats until NJ will allow evictions....

Made the property values drop on them, but single family homes went through the roof

[1Old Pro]

Thanks, didn’t see this earlier.

[T.B. Yoits]

And yet the landlords still get the whopping bills for real property taxes although there is no money from tenants to pay them.

For property that's assessed at one rate but clearly worth ZERO if they're not collecting rents. How many of these owners are going to create a stack of shell corporations where a tenant has to join an organization to be a member and is not considered a renter but an organization member?

[thesligoduffyflynns]

You are right you know

[JGPhila]

The government's argument in favor of the moratorium is expansive and dangerous. In modern America, almost anything has an impact on interstate commerce and thus could be subject to regulation. Without requiring a Commerce Clause expansion to serve a necessary and proper governmental concern, and without balancing the impact of a sought after expansion with its overall effect, there will be no restraint on the exercise of government power. As an example, if this broad reaching argument is upheld by the SCOTUS, nothing will prevent its application to something such as local zoning practices that are deemed to unduly limit the movement of goods, services or people in interstate commerce. Under this expansive definition of the Commerce Clause, nothing would stop the federal government from overruling local zoning rules that are seen as preventing the building of low cost multistory apartments, or scattered site housing, in areas traditionally zoned for single families. After all, the materials that would be used to build these new homes mainly would have moved in interstate commerce. To me, at least, therein lies the danger.

[Revel]

Lets not forget that Trump was the first one to initiate the constitutional crime at the federal level. To add insult to injury after many states are committing the same crime.

But this caused me to question where Trump was really coming from. A business man out to destroy others lively hood by depriving them of their property.

[1Old Pro]

Lets not forget that Trump was the first one to initiate the constitutional crime at the federal level. To add insult to injury after many states are committing the same crime.

It might be OK for a few months, but not a year.

[kaehurowing]

Yes, and the interesting thing was the Trump move to institute a sweeping residential rent moratorium got NO COVERAGE by the mainstream media, even though every lefty should have been praising it.

I kept on waiting for some sort of media coverage but never saw anything. My clients knew about the state moratorium, but all were surprised when I said the state prohibition paled on top of the federal one, and the federal one also imposed whopping fines (like $10,000 per violation) if you did something you weren’t supposed to.

Another example of how the media was totally rigged against Trump.

[nh1]

All true. Most of my tenants are tenancy at will not a lease so the lease isn’t an issue.

I also decided years ago to buy two families that would make great owner occupied with the thoughts that would help the resale when the market’s hot and first time buyers are looking to two families to afford the place.

I used to have 6 to 8 unit properties in the city, I’m very glad I don’t own those now.

[proud American in Canada]

What are you talking about?

If President Trump did “deprive” people of their property, I am sure he gave the property owners fair market value for it.

He deprived no one of anything. He bought from a seller. Capitalism at its finest.

[DoughtyOne]

The laws should protect the legal property owner.

While I am sorry that tenants are being evicted, that is not
the problem of the owner of the building. That person has
bills they have to pay also.

[AAABEST]

...at which point their former property would be given to the squatters?

Or bought up by Asian investors, which is actually what happens.

[OldMissileer]

All this did was give lowlifes a raise, that is right, they still worked or collected government checks and they spent the money on ATVs, Dirtbikes, Cars, etc while not paying a single cent of rent

The moratorium is to run out shortly and the entire amount owed from last year will be due. Last year, when the moratorium started, even liberal entities were telling people to pay their rent any way they could because the bill would come due.

If Congress, or anyone else, tries to absolve the debt it will constitute a "Taking," which is unconstitutional.

[OldMissileer]

at which point their former property would be given to the squatters?

Nope. At least 80% of our politicians think the government should own all property, and that means not just real estate.

The government would step in "for the good of society and our country" and take possession of the properties and move toward every person in this country being a renter and eliminating ownership, which is the bedrock of our free society.

[Kickass Conservative]

>>>What are you talking about?
If President Trump did “deprive” people of their property, I am sure he gave the property owners fair market value for it.
He deprived no one of anything. He bought from a seller. Capitalism at its finest.<<<

I think you are confused about this.

The comment was about POTUS Trump initiating the Federal Moratorium on Rent Payments to Property Owners due to Covid, not Trump personally buying Property.

[Kickass Conservative]

The Tenants who owe Rent Money at the end of the Moratorium won’t have it to pay.

What you will see is a bunch of Small Claims Cases initiated by Landlords who will never receive the Court Judgement or Tenants agreeing to move without causing the Landlord any problems as long as the past due Rent is forgiven.

There is a certain segment of the Population that knows how to play and scam the System. This entire Covid Relief giveaway is like them hitting the Lotto.

[DoodleDawg]

Next stop, the Fifth Circuit.

Ya think?

[JCL3]

Doesn’t look like “A Gentle Ride” was had.

[FreedomNotSafety]

Collect one year’s rent upfront. The tenant can get a loan to pay it. Then the tenant can try stiffing a finance company.

Better yet hook up with “Big Richie” and let him front the money for the tenants..

This ends with insanely expensive rents or all government controlled housing...well for most people. Not Nancy or Chuckie.