Last Tuesday the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a new moratorium on evictions as part of an effort to fight the coronavirus pandemic. This represents a stark reversal from the administrations repeated statements that the CDC lacked the statutory authority to issue such a moratorium. While most of the public controversy over the CDCs action has been around its legality, another important question remains unanswered: What process did the Biden administration use to change its legal position? Although many questions remain unanswered, there is troubling evidence that either the Department of Justice was not consulted on a major legal issue or, in the alternative, the Biden administration has misrepresented its legal position to the public. Both of these possibilities raise questions about the Biden administrations commitment to restoring the norms of executive-branch functioning.
In September 2020, the CDC issued a nationwide moratorium on evictions, justifying its action on the grounds that evictions would spread the coronavirus and that the moratorium was thus a valid exercise of its power to make and enforce such regulations as in [the agencys] judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases. The moratorium was challenged on constitutional and statutory grounds by rental-property owners and, in May, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that the order exceeded the CDCs statutory authority but stayed the judgment pending appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the stay and, in an unsigned, 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court denied a request to lift the stay, allowing the moratorium to continue until its planned expiration at the end of July.
But the Supreme Court decision was not an endorsement of the moratoriums legality. In a one-paragraph statement, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who voted to preserve the district court stay, wrote that he agree[d] with the District Court and the applicants that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exceeded its existing statutory authority by issuing a nationwide eviction moratorium and that, in his view, clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July 31. The reason Kavanaugh did not vote to vacate the stay and enjoin the moratorium was that the moratorium was set to expire a month later, and those few weeks will allow for additional and more orderly distribution of the congressionally appropriated rental assistance funds. Kavanaugh thus let the moratorium continue, but it appears that a majority of the courtKavanaugh and the four justices who would have granted the staybelieves that the CDC lacks the statutory authority to issue a nationwide eviction moratorium.
The Biden administration appeared to have initially understood the decision in the same way, stating, as late as July 29, that the Supreme Court has made clear that [the CDC eviction moratorium] option is no longer available. But Congress failed to act to authorize an extension of the moratorium, and progressive Democrats ratcheted up the pressure for the administration to act unilaterally to provide eviction relief. The Biden administration then abruptly changed positions, deciding sometime this past week that the CDC did, in fact, have the legal authority to issue a new, albeit somewhat narrower, moratorium. When asked about the legal basis for his administrations about-face, Biden asserted that [t]he bulk of the constitutional scholarship says that [the new moratorium is] not likely to pass constitutional muster but that, at a minimum, by the time it gets litigated, it will probably give some additional time for renters to get federal rental-relief payments. In other words, there is a possible, albeit not probable, case for the moratoriums legality, and by the time the courts weigh in one way or the other, the moratorium will have protected at least some renters from eviction. Unsurprisingly, the original eviction-moratorium plaintiffs have challenged this new moratorium, arguing that the administrations changing legal position is evidence of bad faith.
There are many legal issues to unpack around the new moratorium. Most obviously, theres the question of its substantive legality. The main statutory question, around which the litigation over the original moratorium centered, is whether the broadly but vaguely worded 1944 Public Health Service Act gives the CDC the power to block evictions on a mass basis in the service of contagious-disease prevention. There is also a constitutional question: Would the eviction ban constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment that would require just compensation for landlords?
In addition, what, if any, guidance should the government take from the Supreme Courts actions on the moratorium question so far? On the one hand, the court has not officially held that the CDC lacks the statutory authority to issue a nationwide eviction moratorium, and the administration has emphasized this point in its defense of the new moratorium. On the other hand, there appear to be at least five votes to strike down the moratorium as exceeding the CDCs statutory authority, as Biden himself recognized at his press conference (albeit in somewhat garbled form): But the presentyou could notthe Court has already ruled on the present eviction moratorium. Whether as a matter of constitutional lawthe presidents obligation to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executedor even just prudence, should the president take action that he believes the courts will strike down, even if there is no controlling precedent exactly on point?
These are all important and difficult issues, but there is another question that has not gotten nearly as much attention: Who gave Biden the legal advice that apparently changed his mind about the legality of the moratorium?
In the press conference answering questions about the new eviction moratorium, Biden gave the following explanation:
Ive sought out constitutional scholars to determine what is the best possibility that would come from executive action, or the CDCs judgment, what could they do that was most likely to pass muster, constitutionally. The bulk of the constitutional scholarship says that its not likely to pass constitutional muster. Number one. But there are several key scholars who think that it may and its worth the effort.
According to reporting, these key scholars included well-known law professors at Duke and Harvard law schools, such as Walter Dellinger, Martha Minow and Laurence Tribe; Tribe in particular was recommended to Biden by Nancy Pelosi. Which if any scholars consulted by the White House counseled against the legality of a second eviction moratorium is still unclear.
When White House press secretary Jen Psaki was asked who gave the legal sign-off on the new moratorium, she identified other sources of legal advice:
The CDCs lawyers, as well as our Counsels Officeyes. Im not aware of the Department of Justices engagement, but of course, that might make sense. I would have to check on that.
She also said, in some tension with Bidens earlier admission that the bulk of the constitutional scholarship was skeptical of the legality of the eviction moratorium, that the President would not have supported moving forward if he did not support the legal justification. He is old school in that way.
Thus, the official position of the administration now appears to be this: It originally supported the legality of the first eviction moratorium, which it defended in court; after the Supreme Court signaled that a majority of the justices did not believe the moratorium was legal, it changed its position and concluded that the CDC could not, absent congressional action, issue a new eviction moratorium; and it then changed its position again, based on some combination of advice from outside legal experts, White House counsel, and the CDCs lawyers and decided that the CDC did indeed have the authority to issue an eviction moratorium, albeit a narrower one.
Taking this story at face value, the obvious question is where was the Justice Department in all of this? What was the position of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which would ordinarily be the last word on high-profile, complex legal questions such as this one, or the Office of the Solicitor General and the Civil Division, which have responsibility for defending the new moratorium in court?
There are presumably three options. The first is that the Justice Department told the White House that the CDC did not have the authority to issue a new eviction moratorium and the White House ignored that advice. The second option is that the department wasnt consulted, either because of an oversight from the White House or because the White House, suspecting that the department would return an answer it didnt want, simply didnt ask the Justice Department. The third option is that the department was consulted, told the White House that the CDC did have this authority, and this fact has simply not been disclosed in the White Houses public messaging so far. More reporting is needed on this question, but its notable that, when Politicos Josh Gerstein asked Attorney General Merrick Garland whether the department signed off on the eviction moratorium, Garland did not answer the question.
All three of these options raise concerns. If the Justice Department was overruled or simply cut out of the process, this represents a serious breakdown in how executive branch legal decision-making is supposed to happen. To be sure, the president has the final word on executive branch legal positions. He has no constitutional or statutory obligation to consult with, let alone abide by, the legal opinions of the Justice Department. But over decades, a powerful norm has developed that the Justice Department, in particular, is the proper source of legal guidance for the executive branch. OLC is designed not only to produce legal analysis of the highest possible quality that is consistent across the executive branch and with prior executive branch precedent, but, through a combination of its culture, reputation, and institutional position within the Justice Department, is designed to be at least partially insulated from politics so as to provide advice based on its best understanding of what the law requiresnot simply an advocates defense of the contemplated action or position proposed by an agency or the Administration provide the president with the best view of the law. (Whether OLC has always lived up to this lofty standard, and whether past presidents have always treated OLC as authoritative, is a separate question.) And the Office of the Solicitor General and the Civil Division, the primary litigators for the executive branch, make sure that the executive branch upholds its credibility with the courts and takes positions that support the executive branchs overall legal interests, not to mention general rule-of-law norms. If Pelosi really did tell Biden to get better lawyers and Biden responded by going outside the Justice Department, that should set off alarms about the confidence that Biden has in the departments traditional role as the main source of legal advice and analysis for the executive branch.
None of this is to say that the sources on which the Biden administration reportedly relied were subpar, or that Biden was wrong to solicit a wide range of legal views in addition to those of the Justice Department, but rather that none of them provide the departments special sauce: the combination of high-level legal expertise and a degree of independence achieved through institutional design, internal culture or reputation. The White House counsels office is, if only by virtue of its proximity to the president, inclined to take a particularly aggressive view as to the legality of the presidents policy goals. The CDCs lawyers, while no doubt expert when it comes to the CDCs statutory authority, may not have sufficient distance from their own agencys equities to always provide the best view as to the scope of the CDCs powers. And outside scholars, no matter how illustrious, are precisely that: outside the government and thus outside the institutional structures that have been developed to provide appropriate legal advice within the executive branch and avoid the risk of cherry-picking, which is a particular concern in this case given the wide variety of sincerely held views across the legal academy. (Besides, the attorney general was, until recently, one of the most respected appellate judges of his generation, and OLC is headed by two widely respected constitutional law professorsthe Justice Department is more than qualified to give the White House all the legal advice it needs.) If the Biden administration decided to make an abrupt change in its legal position, these sources of advice should have been at minimum supplemented by the departments considered views.
If, on the other hand, the Justice Department did in fact sign off on the new order but the Biden administration simply hasnt said so, that would be its own, wholly avoidable error. Part of upholding the procedural norms of executive branch legal interpretation is stating publicly that those procedures were followed. If one follows a norm but acts as if one didnt, that undermines the norm as much as if one had actually flouted it.
There is, of course, another possibility: that the White House never actually believed that the CDC lacked the authority to issue another eviction moratorium, but that it said so to put pressure on Congress to act. This would certainly explain the Justice Departments apparent silence: OLC, the Civil Division, and the Office of the Solicitor General presumably all signed off on an interpretation of CDC authorities as including the power to issue an eviction moratorium, because they were defending the original moratorium all the way up to the Supreme Court. And given that the court hasnt issued a ruling on the merits, and the new CDC moratorium is narrower than the old one, there would be no need for the Justice Department to update its legal view, since the underlying issue had not changed.
This view is thus reassuring from the perspective of internal executive branch legal process, but it raises concerns of its own about the candor of the administrations statements about its view of the law. If the administration believed this entire time that the CDC could issue a moratorium, but publicly misrepresented its view to pressure Congress to act, that would seriously undermine its credibility.
A central message of Bidens campaign was that he would rebuild norms of transparency, procedure, and honesty in the executive branch, norms that had been severely weakened by four years of the Trump administration. Based on the record as it stands now, there is a serious cloud around whether in this case the Biden administration has lived up to that promise. At the very least, the administration should clarify its confusing and seemingly contradictory statements about the internal legal deliberations. Whether one supports or opposes the CDCs eviction moratorium, the question of how its legal basis was developed and whether that process was communicated truthfully and accurately to the public is a serious one, and one for which the Biden administration should be held to account.
Continue reading here:
Did the Justice Department Give President Biden Legal Advice on the CDC Eviction Moratorium? - Lawfare
- VANDA Pharmaceuticals States a Fifth Amendment Claim against the Government for Taking a Trade Secret - Trade Secrets Trends - February 13th, 2024 [February 13th, 2024]
- Attorneys argue shooters Fifth Amendment rights on the 4th day of the Jennifer Crumbley trial - Detroit News - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- Judge will not allow Michigan school shooter to testify in mother's trial if he invokes the Fifth Amendment - AppleValleyNewsNow.com - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- Shamoon v. Resideo: Obviousness affirmed - Patently-O - August 12th, 2023 [August 12th, 2023]
- Billings County sued over eminent domain as bridge dispute rekindles - Bismarck Tribune - August 12th, 2023 [August 12th, 2023]
- 'Tyler' and a Call for Reform of the New Jersey Tax Foreclosure ... - Law.com - August 12th, 2023 [August 12th, 2023]
- "Like fatter Tony Soprano Attending the Arraignment and "Effect[ing ... - Emptywheel - August 12th, 2023 [August 12th, 2023]
- Call to faith-based leaders to help end violence; Parents need to pay ... - Capital Gazette - August 12th, 2023 [August 12th, 2023]
- "Stunning development": Experts say Trump target letter is surest ... - Salon - June 12th, 2023 [June 12th, 2023]
- LIV, PGA drop a bombshell on Washington - POLITICO - June 12th, 2023 [June 12th, 2023]
- Congressman Matt Gaetz Introduces Resolution to Hold Former ... - Congressman Matt Gaetz - June 12th, 2023 [June 12th, 2023]
- It's time to end home equity theft in Maine - Bangor Daily News - June 12th, 2023 [June 12th, 2023]
- Louisiana's Sabine River Authority Not Entitled To Sovereign Immunity - The Energy Law Blog - May 28th, 2023 [May 28th, 2023]
- Ninth Circuit Finds that Criminal Reentry Provision Not Driven by ... - Immigration Blog - May 28th, 2023 [May 28th, 2023]
- Ken Paxton Impeached on 20 Charges Including Bribery ... - The Texan - May 28th, 2023 [May 28th, 2023]
- Simply losing it: Bitter fight brews over federal judges forced retirement effort - Yahoo News - May 28th, 2023 [May 28th, 2023]
- Worth County Board of Supervisors Meeting (LIVE) - KIOW.com - May 28th, 2023 [May 28th, 2023]
- Trump Organization finishes last in brand reputation survey for second straight year - The Hill - May 28th, 2023 [May 28th, 2023]
- They held down a Black teen who tried to shoplift. He died from ... - Wisconsin Examiner - May 28th, 2023 [May 28th, 2023]
- What is the Fifth Amendment, and how has it been used? : NPR - March 31st, 2023 [March 31st, 2023]
- Tmc the Metals Company Inc. Enters into Fifth Amendment to Pilot Mining Test Agreement and Third Amendment to Strategic Alliance Agreement, Which Is... - February 20th, 2023 [February 20th, 2023]
- Interpretation: The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause | Constitution ... - January 31st, 2023 [January 31st, 2023]
- Fifth Amendment invoked to the point of 'unintentional hilarity' by Jan ... - December 26th, 2022 [December 26th, 2022]
- Why Did Trump Plead The Fifth Amendment?What We Do Know ... - Newsweek - October 25th, 2022 [October 25th, 2022]
- Understanding the Fifth Amendment Right to Remain Silent - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- US Government for Kids: Fifth Amendment - Ducksters - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- Donald Trump loves to plead the Fifth. It won't save him this time. - MSNBC - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Georgia Special Purpose Grand Juries But Were Afraid to Ask - Lawfare - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- Citing double jeopardy, Fargo man who killed 14-year-old Jupiter Paulsen wants murder conviction dropped - INFORUM - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- Nicki Clyne: What Happened to NXIVM Member and Where Is She Now? - Newsweek - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- New York AG Asks Judge to Prevent Trumps From Hiding Assets Mother Jones - Mother Jones - October 15th, 2022 [October 15th, 2022]
- Trump Will Finally Have to Face Questions About Alleged Rape, Judge Rules - VICE - October 15th, 2022 [October 15th, 2022]
- 'In the Heat of the Night' star Lee Grant on working with Sidney Poitier and being blacklisted by Hollywood - Yahoo Entertainment - October 15th, 2022 [October 15th, 2022]
- THE OTHER SIDE: Orange Jesus took the Fifth - theberkshireedge.com - October 6th, 2022 [October 6th, 2022]
- BNP Paribas : 5th amendment to the 2021 Universal Registration Document - Marketscreener.com - September 29th, 2022 [September 29th, 2022]
- Tlingit tribal member shares his story of helping the Yakamas get Mount Adams back - Yakima Herald-Republic - September 29th, 2022 [September 29th, 2022]
- Trump Pleading the Fifth Might Have Doomed Him in Civil Case - Newsweek - September 27th, 2022 [September 27th, 2022]
- Why is Kevin McCarthy Promising to Remove Parents from the Terrorist Watch List? - Daily Kos - September 27th, 2022 [September 27th, 2022]
- Alex Jones said he may have to plead the Fifth as he's set to testify - Insider - September 27th, 2022 [September 27th, 2022]
- USS Fitzgerald and ACX Crystal collision: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals delineates the reach of personal jurisdiction - GARD - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- Trump investigation tracker: Keeping up with Trump's many legal issues - Grid - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- Bo Dukes's conviction to stand following motion for new trial - Douglas Now - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- VAIL RESORTS INC : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet... - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- It's brother vs. brother at trial over NYC slaying of mobbed-up dad, 'Sally Daz' Zottola - New York Post - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- Letters: Boater offers different perspective on the Playpen - Chicago Tribune - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- Michael Flynn: From Government Insider to Holy Warrior - PBS - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- Hamel found guilty of Athol murder, sentenced to life in prison - The Recorder - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- Biden Slowly Winning LBJ- and FDR-Like Praise As Legislative Victories Mount - Seattle Medium - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- Vice Principals, the Fifth Amendment, and Negative Inferences - JD Supra - August 30th, 2022 [August 30th, 2022]
- PERMA FIX ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an... - August 30th, 2022 [August 30th, 2022]
- Letter: Invoking the Fifth Amendment is not an admission of guilt - INFORUM - August 29th, 2022 [August 29th, 2022]
- Taking the Fifth, FBI attacked: 5 takeaways of Gov. Whitmer kidnap trial - MLive.com - August 29th, 2022 [August 29th, 2022]
- How much money could Donald Trump have to pay in fines if his businesses are penalized? - AS USA - August 29th, 2022 [August 29th, 2022]
- A high stake debate and tension at the GOP convention: Your guide to Michigan politics - MLive.com - August 29th, 2022 [August 29th, 2022]
- We Can Be Framers Too - The Atlantic - August 29th, 2022 [August 29th, 2022]
- For 38 Years of American History, There Has Been No Vice President - History News Network - August 8th, 2022 [August 8th, 2022]
- Emmett Till is gone. The quest for justice lives on. - New York Daily News - August 8th, 2022 [August 8th, 2022]
- 'A bold-faced LIE': St. Louis mayor blasts Black police officer groups criticism of oversight bill - KSDK.com - August 8th, 2022 [August 8th, 2022]
- He has done more to further the cause of hate in the US than almost anyone: the rise and fall of Alex Jones - The Guardian - August 8th, 2022 [August 8th, 2022]
- Even the District Attorney Believed Joaquin Ciria Was Innocent. Why Did It Take So Long to Set Him Free? - POLITICO - August 8th, 2022 [August 8th, 2022]
- Understanding the Constitution: Why It Doesn't Protect the Unborn - The Epoch Times - August 6th, 2022 [August 6th, 2022]
- Former fugitive charged with rape in Deerfield case demands new lawyer - The Recorder - August 6th, 2022 [August 6th, 2022]
- Sources: Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Testify Before NY AG's Office in Finance Probe, Neither Pleads the 5th - NBC New York - August 6th, 2022 [August 6th, 2022]
- Time running out to try Catherine Hoggle for the disappearance, suspected murder of her 2 kids - WUSA9.com - August 6th, 2022 [August 6th, 2022]
- Trump faces uphill fight on executive privilege in DOJ probe - POLITICO - August 6th, 2022 [August 6th, 2022]
- Charles Milliken: Defining what exactly is a 'right' - Monroe Evening News - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- How grand juries work and why Jan. 6 prosecutors are relying on them - Salon - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- Roe, Dobbs and women's rights New York Daily News - New York Daily News - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- Partisan congressional hearings are a threat to all citizens - Monroe Evening News - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- 9 years after a UIW police officer shot student Cameron Redus, the case is going to trial - San Antonio Express-News - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- Outcome of first kidnapping trial can't be used as evidence in second trial, judge rules - Michigan Radio - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- Washington County woman held in death of 5-year-old son - Herald-Mail Media - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- What Did the Dissenting Justices Think About the Power of Military Authorities & More - The Soldiers Project - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- Whipping the votes in Suffolk - Newsday - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- If Trump Takes the Fifth, Is He Guilty? - Law & Crime - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Anambra House of Assembly Passes 5th Amendment Bills - TVC News - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- How do grand juries work? Their major role in criminal justice, and why prosecutors are using them to investigate efforts to overturn the 2020... - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- We need to hear the unbiased story - Villages-News - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Outcome of first kidnapping trial can't be used as evidence in second trial, judge rules - WKAR - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- LOVERRO: The weight on Rivera's shoulders is inevitably about much more than football - Washington Times - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]