Thread by @ClaireBerlinski

I'm a bit confused by the question. If it's illegal, how can it be desirable, policy-wise? Do any of your followers think, "Rule of law, hell--I'm over it?"
As for whether it's legal, I'm not quite familiar enough with the relevant law to say, but surely...it couldn't be?

https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1423509525764599813

We don't have a *federal* law on the books that allows the Executive to make arbitrary decisions depriving owners of private property of their established rights over it, do we? What could be less compatible with the American legal tradition than that?

I could imagine *state* or *local* laws pertaining to rental properties under emergency conditions ... but a federal law?
I haven't really looked at this, but what's the putative justification for it? This couldn't be within the powers of the Executive, could it?

I'm sincerely curious, if I'm missing something here. I know in France it would be perfectly possible: There's a law on the books that prevents landlords from evicting tenants during the winter;

I imagine it's easy to pass a law here preventing landlords to from evicting tenants during a pandemic. But even Macron, with his quasi-monarchical powers, couldn't do it without the Senate passing a law, I don't think.

(Don't hold me to that. I'm not a specialist in French rental law, save as it applies to me.)
It just seems *impossible* that we could have such a federal law on the books already; I know we didn't pass one; therefore--it's illegal.

And if it's illegal, doing it is bad. By definition. Otherwise, you're no longer living under rule of law.
I mean, yes, it would be nice if no one were evicted during a pandemic. Biden could *urge* people not to evict anyone.

But the Executive can't just *announce* it, can it?
I may be mistaken. Maybe there's some obscure public health law on the books that says, "During a pandemic, the Executive becomes a monarch." And maybe the courts would go along with that.

But man, would I be surprised.