Thread by @CevallosLaw

1> State and federal governments suspend evictions and foreclosures, but is doing this constitutional? Landlords & property owners might claim a violation of the Contracts Clause. THREAD
@NBCNightlyNews

2> The Contracts Clause provides that "[n]o State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." U.S. Const. art. I § 10.
@NBCNewsNow

3> The Framers considered impairment of contracts, particularly to erase debts, to be a big problem. Madison said: "[L]aws impairing the obligation of contracts . . . are contrary to the first principles of the social compact and to every principle of sound legislation."

4> The Contracts Clause restricts the power of States to disrupt contractual arrangements, but it does not prohibit all laws affecting pre-existing contracts.
@MSNBC

5> The language of the Contracts Clause appears facially absolute. There is no qualifying language like "unreasonable impairment" or "excessive impairment." It appears to flatly prohibit ANY legislative impairment of contracts. But...

6> But, despite the absolute language of the Contract Clause, courts don't interpret it to prohibit all impairment of contracts. Instead, courts balance contractors' private rights with the public interest.

7> The first element landlords and would-be evictors must show is that the legislation/govt action interfered with their contract. It seems to pretty clearly abridge their right to evict, therefore interfering with a contract.
@AlisonMorrisNOW

8> In determining whether an impairment of the contract clause exists, this is the beginning, not the end of the analysis. The next question is whether that impairment exceeds constitutional bounds."
@ElieNYC

9> Legislative impairment of contract rights (like tenant leases) is forbidden only if the impairment is (1) substantial; and (2) lacks a legitimate and significant public purpose.
@rebeccacheng6 @jenasturgis

10> The home rental industry is already so heavily regulated that a court might not find an impairment of contracts. After all, rent control is an example of direct legislative interference with Landlord-Tenant contracts, and those are constitutional.