Date Filed: October 22, 2020
Original Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Appeals: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Case Status: Victory
Lauren Terkel inherited a modest four-plex rental house in Tyler, Texas. During the COVID pandemic one of her tenants stopped paying rent. Normally, property owners can go to state court and seek an eviction order once a tenant stops paying. But in September 2020 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued an order prohibiting property owners from evicting their tenants for any reason—including nonpayment of rent. This order denied Mrs. Terkel and many other property owners their legal rights under Texas law.
To vindicate Texas property owners’ rights, CAF and the Southeastern Legal Foundation challenged the CDC’s eviction moratorium in court. The lawsuit argued that the eviction moratorium violated property rights, exceeded the CDC’s statutory authority, and violated the Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause.
In February 2021, Judge Barker agreed with the plaintiffs and declared that the CDC eviction moratorium was unconstitutional. This decision was the first successful challenge to the CDC’s eviction moratorium. The court’s opinion advanced commerce clause jurisprudence by holding that an eviction is a property right, not an economic activity. That menas Congress and the CDC may not regulate evictions under the Interstate Commerce Clause. It also underscores that the Constitution remains in force, even during a pandemic. Constitutional protection is most essential—and most at risk—during times of crisis.
The federal government appealed the district court’s decision. Before the Fifth Circuit could decide the appeal, the Supreme Court decided in a different case that the eviction moratorium likely exceeded the CDC’s statutory authority. Because of this, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the government’s appeal but kept the district court’s opinion in place.
Case Documents:
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Opinion and Order Granting Converted Motion for Summary Judgment