Court of Appeals Agrees with The Buckeye Institute: CDC Lacks Authority to Micromanage the Housing Market

Jul 23, 2021

Columbus, OH – With its unanimous ruling in Tiger Lily v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed with The Buckeye Institute that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) well exceeded its legal authority when it issued a nationwide ban on evictions.

“This unanimous decision affirms that major policy decisions must be made by the people’s elected representatives, not by unelected federal bureaucrats,” said Jay R. Carson, senior litigator at The Buckeye Institute. “The economic impact of this moratorium on small landlords—who own 40 percent of the nation’s rental units—has been nothing short of devastating. When the federal government makes it more difficult and more expensive to be a landlord, you end up with fewer housing options and increasing costs. Today’s ruling ensures that regulatory agencies cannot rewrite private rental agreements.”

The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioners arguing that the CDC’s rule implementing a nationwide eviction moratorium was an unprecedented expansion of the regulatory state and created unintended harmful consequences for landlords and tenants across the country. The Sixth Circuit’s ruling affirms a Tennessee federal district court’s decision in that the statute that authorized the CDC to take certain actions to prevent the spread of communicable diseases does not give the CDC the authority to regulate the housing market nationwide.

The Buckeye Institute’s brief in Tiger Lily v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development was the second amicus brief the organization has filed against the unconstitutional eviction ban. Buckeye’s first brief was filed in Terkel v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

# # #