Got this in an email. Thought you might want to read it.

A judge in Texas has struck down the CDC Eviction Moratorium (see below for the opinion). The judge ruled that the moratorium is unconstitutional and the CDC is ordered to not apply or enforce the order moving forward. As you know, NARPM has participated in 3 cases challenging the CDC eviction moratorium. While this was not one of those cases, we will nonetheless keep a close eye on it. We expect CDC to appeal, and we will be sharing more information as we get it. In addition to the court's opinion, here is press coverage from The Hill.

(add 5 letters, h---s)

://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxwLsdJdZHHCqsTcPDXbspqTFRhW

Sorry - not that link.

If you google

" Case 6:20-cv-00564-JCB Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 "

More:

Yeah, agree with WMH. At least the CDC one made it very clear what qualified.

This will change nothing. The same case specifically stated that STATES were still allowed to do their own thing -- and most of them have done their own thing (or will NOW) that is much more poorly written than what the CDC had done.

Heck, the CDC had literally provided a PDF of the document (which we just discussed last week) that specifies what the tenant must do to qualify -- and warns them that it was a crime to falsify anything on it! It was well done.

So, again, I don't think this is good for LLs in the long run. We were better off with the well-written CDC plan than all of these individual state-plans (and more will now come probably) that basically say that no evictions are allowed at all.

- John...

The CDC moratorium--like all others--was an unconstitutional Govt interference with the rights of private individuals to contract, as well as a violation of the taking clause. The Govt is glossing it over by saying "The tenants still OWE the rent so we haven't actually TAKEN anything", but the reality is when someone removes you income for a period of time against your wishes and for all practical purposes ensures you will never be able to collect it (we all know once tenants get more than a month behind, they almost never catch up) then yes, they have TAKEN from you.

What if I were to remove all the gold from Ft. Knox but promise to give it back 12-18 months later? How far would that fly? What's good for the goose....

They all need to be struck down.

The only good that comes out of this deal is that hopefully this precedent will be followed by other freedom loving states that have no additional restrictions and who will now feel emboldened to strike down the CDC moratorium. Even though it's easy to get around, that is no valid reason to keep it in place, and thus is should be discarded. Time and again here we have posted the 5 criteria which are nearly impossible for any tenant to comply with, but which still create an extra delay in the process. All the tenant has to do is CLAIM it; then the LL has to prove that they lied, meaning another day in court weeks (months?) later, more unpaid rent, and is probably a strong enough intimidation tactic that Ma and Pa land lords will just roll over and suck it up.

Has any tenant been convicted on the perjury threat yet? I haven't seen any cases as such, but perhaps someone here has and would be kind enough to share.

Bottom line: Regardless of how sloppy, ill-fitting, and loosey goosey the CDC moratorium is, it is an illegal infringement, and therefore should be thrown out by every court in the land.

Law360 (February 25, 2021, 11:35 PM EST) -- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can't enforce a nationwide eviction freeze amid the coronavirus pandemic, a Texas federal judge ruled Thursday, holding that the agency lacks the constitutional authority to regulate private property rights.

In his order, U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, sided with a group of Texas landlords who've argued that the CDC's September eviction moratorium extends "far beyond the legitimate scope of federal power." The landlords — one individual and six companies — say they're owed thousands of dollars in unpaid rent.

The CDC has maintained that a nationwide eviction ban is within its federal authority to regulate commerce among the states.

The regulated activity in dispute, however, is not the production or use of a commodity that is traded in an interstate market, Judge Barker said Thursday, adding that real estate "is inherently local." The judge granted summary judgment in favor of the property owners, ruling that the order exceeded the CDC's constitutional authority.

"Residential buildings do not move across state lines," he said. "And eviction is fundamentally the vindication of the property owner's possessory interest."

Judge Barker characterized the CDC's order as criminalizing "the possession of one's property when inhabited by a covered person."

Specifically, Judge Barker said that the eviction of one person from a dwelling does not alone have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Though quarantining an infected person would keep that person from traveling across state lines, the CDC's order "is not such a quarantine," according to the order.

The government's argument in support of such a measure would also support federal regulation of marriage and divorce, the judge said. It would also permit a federal eviction moratorium for any reason, he said.

"Such broad authority over state remedies begins to resemble, in operation, a prohibited federal police power," Judge Barker said. He added that "[a]lthough the COVID-19 pandemic persists, so does the Constitution."

The judge declined to issue an injunction blocking the evictions ban, saying that he anticipates the CDC will respect his judgment.

Rob Henneke of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, counsel for the landlords, told Law360 on Thursday that his clients are "glad to have their constitutional rights vindicated."

The moratorium was unfair to millions of landlords across the country, he said. The cause of the economic downturn was largely the government's policies in the first place, Henneke said.

"So if there is anger to be directed, it should not be directed at the private property owners who are just trying to pay their tax bills and mortgages," he said.

Henneke added that the Constitution was written for extraordinary times.

"And there is no COVID-19 exception to the Constitution," he said.

CDC representatives didn't immediately return a request for comment late Thursday.

The moratorium is the federal government's second stab at preventing evictions amid the pandemic. Under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, Congress imposed a limited freeze on evicting residents of properties with federally-backed mortgages, as well as participants in federal housing programs. The ban expired on July 24.

The CDC stepped in on Sept. 1, prohibiting evictions through at least the end of the year. The CDC's ban is more sweeping and applies to all tenants, regardless of where they live, as long as they meet certain criteria tied to the precariousness of their situation and ability to pay, among other factors.

The CDC has couched its eviction freeze in public health terms, saying people who are booted from their homes are likely to move around, in some cases crossing state lines. This could increase transmission rates and further spread the virus, according to the agency.

The landlords argued in their October suit that the moratorium does nothing to stop the spread of COVID-19 and goes beyond the federal government's powers.