[RPPTL Leasing Committee] FW: New Decision: Eviction Moratorium Declared Unconstitutional (Terkel v. C.D.C.)

Tue Mar 2 14:14:47 PST 2021

Good afternoon everyone.  Please see the attached case and analysis below. Thanks to Michael Gelfand for his usual diligence on caselaw updates and excellent analysis.

Brenda

Best regards,
Brenda B. Ezell, B.C.S.
[BCS]
[cid:image002.png at 01D70F87.8ACF4500]
3560 Cardinal Point Drive, Suite 202
Jacksonville, FL 32257
904.432.3200 (o)
904-432-3201 (f)
www.ezellfirmpa.com<http://www.ezellfirmpa.com/>

PANDEMIC NOTICE:  All CLIENTS AND GUESTS ARE REQUIRED TO WEAR A FACE COVERING TO ENTER THE OFFICE. ONE CAN BE PROVIDED FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE AND OUR SAFETY. WE APPRECIATE YOUR COOPERATION.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may contain information which is legally privileged or otherwise exempt from disclosure. They are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipients or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.

From: condomania-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org <condomania-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of Michael J. Gelfand
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2021 2:12 PM
To: RPPTL Condominium and Planned Development Committee <condomania at lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: [RPPTL-condomania] New Decision: Eviction Moratorium Declared Unconstitutional (Terkel v. C.D.C.)
Importance: High

Dear Colleagues
The CDC's Order declaring a national moratorium on residential eviction<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/pdf/CDC-Eviction-Moratorium-01292021.pdf>s was just declared unconstitutional by a U.S. District Court in Terkel v. C.D.C., Case No. No. 6:20-cv-00564 (E.D. Texas, February 25, 2021).<https://www.law360.com/articles/1359176/attachments/0>
The Issue.
The trial court phrased the issue as:
whether a nationwide moratorium on evicting specified tenants is within the limited powers that our Constitution grants to the federal government, namely, its authority to legislate as necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several States.
The trial court pointedly commented that the Federal Government's position was not reliant upon the current pandemic, but was asserted to be available at any time, "open-ended."
The Record
The parties agreed that as a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a law this was a pure question of law, no issue of fact, no discovery necessary.
The Analysis
The decision quickly drew a distinction between a state's authority to regulate residential foreclosures which is not addressed in the order, as opposed to the Federal Article I power to regulate commerce.  The Federal Government did not assert Article II executive authority.
The Government asserted only one prong of the commerce clause in support, "activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce". The court looked to a four part test:
(1) the economic character of the intrastate activity;
(2) whether the regulation contains a "jurisdictional element" that may "establish whether the enactment is in pursuance of Congress' regulation of interstate commerce";
(3) any congressional findings regarding the effect of the regulated activity on commerce among the States; and
(4) attenuation in the link between the regulated intra-state activity and commerce among the States.
United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 609-13 (2000).
Applying the test, the court looked at substantial effects of the activity sought to be regulated, evictions in state court, and found that:
the regulated activity is not the production or use of a commodity that is traded in an interstate market. Rather, the challenged order regulates property rights in buildings-specifically, whether an owner may regain possession of property from an inhabitant. 86 Fed. Reg. at 8,021 (defining "eviction" as any action "to remove or cause the removal of a covered person from a residential property"). Real estate is inherently local. Residential buildings do not move across state lines. And eviction is fundamentally the vindication of the property owner's possessory interest.
Concerning Federal jurisdiction the court questioned whether evictions created an effect on interstate commerce, remarking that there were no Congressional findings. Further, though a quarantine may prevent interstate commerce, the C.D.C. order was not a quarantine.
The court took care to distinguishing the ability regulate leasing.
In short, the criminalization of court eviction proceedings to enforce a property right of possession, a first for the Federal Government, invaded an area traditionally regulated by the states. This unique, first time for this type of regulation, created doubt, if not a presumption that it was inappropriate.
The court concludes its analysis with "Although the COVID-19 pandemic persists, so does the Constitution."
Relief.
Based on representations by the Government that it would "respect the declaratory judgment", apparently anticipating a recission of the C.D.C. order, the court did not enter an injunction; but, invited the Plaintiff's to seek that relief "should defend-ants threaten to depart from the declaratory judgment."
Kibitzing .
As a reminder, though this is from a U.S. District Court located in Texas, a U.S. District Court has national wide injunction authority. The Federal Government may seek a stay pending appeal, if an appeal is sought.
Recognizing that the C.D.C. has had only one business day to react as the time this mini-brief is posted, the C.D.C. website link to the moratorium order does not show a rescission of the moratorium or any action in regard to the court's Order.  Thus, it is uncertain whether there will be an appeal or a stay. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-eviction-declaration.html  Likely landlords will be getting ready, but waiting to file for evictions until the C.D.C.'s next step. Certainly after the anticipated recission there will be a flood of filings which will have many impacts to be discussed later.
Though this Order is from a trial court, and precedential value, especially in Florida would be limited, it is interesting that the court found that evictions are not "economic activity" in the interstate commerce realm.
Best for a safe and healthy weekend.

Michael J. Gelfand<http://www.gelfandarpe.com/attorney/michael-gelfand/>
Florida Bar Board Certified Attorney:
   Real Estate Law
   Condominium & Planned Development Law
Florida Supreme Court Certified Mediator:
   Civil Circuit Court & Civil County Court
Fellow, American College of Real Estate Lawyers

[cid:image006.jpg at 01D70D12.3D4148A0][cid:image003.jpg at 01D70D11.78BAEB80]   [A with acronym.jpg]

Gelfand & Arpe, P.A.<http://www.gelfandarpe.com/>
"Assisting Communities to Efficiently Reach Goals"
1555 Tower, Suite 1220
1555 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach Florida 33401-2329
(561) 655-6224

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
            - Edmund Burke
We must criticize without wounding and debate without dehumanizing our opponents. Fight for the things that you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you.
         - Ruth Bader Ginsburg

This communication/transmission is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete and destroy this message and any attachments. To reply to our e-mail administrator directly, please send an e-mail to ga at gelfandarpe.com.<mailto:ga at gelfandarpe.com.>
Nothing contained in this message (including any attachments) shall constitute a contract or electronic signature under the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, any version of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or any other statute governing electronic transactions. This e-mail does not provide an opinion, nor without a fee agreement signed by the firm does this confirm representation or counsel.
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/landten/attachments/20210302/22c63f34/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 16139 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/landten/attachments/20210302/22c63f34/image003-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2390 bytes
Desc: image006.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/landten/attachments/20210302/22c63f34/image006-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5096 bytes
Desc: image007.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/landten/attachments/20210302/22c63f34/image007-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1889 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/landten/attachments/20210302/22c63f34/image001-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8474 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/landten/attachments/20210302/22c63f34/image002-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Terkel v CDC US DC Tx 2021.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 434593 bytes
Desc: Terkel v CDC US DC Tx 2021.pdf
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/landten/attachments/20210302/22c63f34/TerkelvCDCUSDCTx2021-0001.pdf>