Just to swing back to this now that I'm back from dinner, SCOTUS, 5-4, denies application to lift the federal eviction moratorium that's in place for the rest of July. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
I see there are questions from the class, so let's break this down.
Groups challenging CDC's pandemic-related moratorium on evictions say CDC lacks the authority to issue that moratorium.
They're right. And a district court said so. (actually a couple courts have)
But the CDC has appealed that decision to the DC Circuit, which issued a stay of the district court's decision pending appeal.
In other words, the moratorium remains in effect pending appeal.
So the industry groups filed what is called an "application to vacate stay" with SCOTUS. That application goes to the circuit justice first.
Here, because this is in the DC Circuit, that goes to Chief Justice Roberts. So that's why it says "presented to the Chief Justice."
CJ Roberts then referred it to the rest of the Court, which voted to deny it.
This is one of the times when we know the actual vote break-out of an application like this because five justices told us their votes. Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett would grant.
But on an application in what is now (relatively recently, too) referred to as the "shadow docket" you need five votes.
Justice Kavanaugh concurs in denying the application. So that tells us that the Chief Justice, Kavanaugh, and Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan all said no.
Alright. Other issue. J. Kavanaugh, concurring in the denial, writes for himself that he agrees CDC lacks statutory authority to issue the eviction moratorium.
And yet he votes to allow it to remain in place through the end of July. How can this be, you might reasonably ask.
The answer that Justice Kavanaugh points to is that to prevail on a stay application like this, generally you don't just have to demonstrate you will likely win if the case is heard, but that the balance of hardships is also in your favor.
For a conservative majority that has been pretty aggressive about pandemic-related restrictions on churches or private religious gatherings, it's a little disappointing to see the Chief and Justice Kavanaugh won't give owners of real property any love.
Particularly when there isn't anything even nodding to a whisper of a meritorious argument that CDC has the statutory authority to just declare evictions illegal.
Wellllll, "get away with" is doing work here. Yet to be seen if CDC gets away with it. What we know is that they will continue to get away with it *for now*.
It'll be interesting to see if CDC's last eviction moratorium extension is truly the last one. Particularly if the delta variant, or whatever we're calling it this week, takes off over the next four weeks.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Explains that because one DA compelled Cosby to testify in a civil action without the benefit of the 5A privilege against self-incrimination, successor DAs could not use that inculpatory testimony in his criminal trial.
"we hold that, when a prosecutor makes an unconditional promise of non-prosecution, and when the defendant relies upon that guarantee to the detriment of his constitutional right not to testify, ..." pacourts.us/assets/opinion…
"... the principle of fundamental fairness that undergirds due process of law in our criminal justice system demands that the promise be enforced."
Our first ideological 6-3 of the day is in Guzman Chavez, the immigration detention case. Justice Alito writes for the Court except for a footnote. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
This case is about whether certain aliens being detained after unlawful reentry while they seek limited relief from removal can get out of detention on bond.
Held: nope.
Also, what's this footnote that couldn't get a majority?
10th Cir.: it violated equal protection for police officers to provide less protection to a woman whose domestic assailant was a fellow officer than they would to victims of domestic violence whose assailants were not officers.
To sum up, woman is killed by her police officer former-lover (who then kills himself).
Her estate is suing bc she complained about his violent behavior many times, but his fellow officers never arrested him.
Most interestingly (and this is going to be a big thing for police departments) the department's policy of referring allegations against officers to an outside authority (while just arresting in cases of non-police allegations) is evidence of discriminatory intent.
Turning back to this for a minute, SCOTUS' decision not to take up this case means that in the 4th Cir. (joining the 7th and 11th) school policies that rely on the sex listed on birth certificates are sex-based classifications subject to intermediate scrutiny.
The import of this case is that's not going to fly.
This is important bc many school districts have tried to solve trans questions with what they see as a bright-line rule: they'll go with whatever it says on your birth certificate.
(They'll also frequently claim "that's science!" even though it's nothing of the sort.)
5th Cir. will not rehear en banc a QI case in which the plaintiff alleges that police officers knowingly tased a suicidal man drenched in gasoline and thereby set him on fire, killing him.