Terkel v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — E.D. Tex., No. 6:20-cv-00564

Case summary

Lauren Terkel and six property owners and managers filed this complaint on October 22, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, No. 6:20-cv-00564-JCB, challenging the nationwide residential eviction moratorium the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued on September 4, 2020. The complaint pleads two counts: that the order exceeds the limitations of Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, and that it violates the Administrative Procedure Act. In a final judgment of February 25, 2021 the court declared the order unlawful as contrary to constitutional power, holding that it exceeds the federal government's power to regulate commerce among the several States, dismissed two plaintiffs for lack of standing and denied injunctive relief. The Fifth Circuit dismissed the government's appeal on the appellants' own motion.

Case at a glance

What did the court decide?

That the challenged agency order exceeds the power granted to the federal government to regulate commerce among the several States and to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying that power into execution, and that the order is therefore held and declared unlawful as contrary to constitutional power under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B). The opinion records that the federal government cannot say it has ever before invoked its power over interstate commerce to impose a residential eviction moratorium.

What did the plaintiffs claim?

That the order exceeds the limitations of Article I, section 8, being neither within the enumerated powers nor inherent in the executive power of Article II, and that eviction of tenants from private property is not a channel or instrumentality of interstate commerce and does not substantially affect it. The second count pleads that the order violates the Administrative Procedure Act.

Why was the appeal dismissed?

The opinion of October 19, 2021 records that the appellants moved to dismiss the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) and that the court granted the motion. It records the government's contentions that the expiry of the most recent version of the moratorium rendered the controversy moot and that the dispute was moot because the government had voluntarily ceased enforcement before the formal expiration date of October 3, while maintaining that the CDC has constitutional authority to issue the moratorium.

Summary written from the documents on this page; every sentence is sourced.