TERKEL II v. CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Lauren TERKEL; Pineywoods Arcadia Home Team, Limited; Lufkin Creekside Apartments, Limited; Lufkin Creekside Apartments II, Limited; Lakeridge Apartments, Limited; Weatherford Meadow Vista Apartments, L.P.; MacDonald Property Management, L.L.C., Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION; Rochelle P. Walensky, in her official capacity as Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Sherri A. Berger, in her official capacity as Acting Chief of Staff for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; United States Department of Health and Human Services; Xavier Becerra, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; United States of America, Defendants—Appellants.

No. 21-40137

Decided: October 19, 2021

Before Jones, Smith, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Robert E. Henneke, Texas Public Policy Foundation, Austin, TX, Kimberly S. Hermann, Celia Howard O'Leary, Southeastern Legal Foundation, Roswell, GA, Chance Weldon, Austin, TX, for Plaintiffs—Appellees. Alisa Beth Klein, Esq., Brian James Springer, Leslie Cooper Vigen, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, Steven Andrew Myers, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Federal Programs Branch, for Defendants—Appellants. Brianne Jenna Gorod, Constitutional Accountability Center, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Constitutional Accountability Center. Alan E. Schoenfeld, WilmerHale, New York, NY, Eric L. Hawkins, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, L.L.P., Boston, MA, Aleksandr Sverdlik, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Robert Alt, Buckeye Institute, Columbus, OH, Jay R. Carson, Wegman Hessler, L.P.A., Cleveland, OH, for Amicus Curiae The Buckeye Institute. Martin Jonathan Siegel, Law Offices of Martin J. Siegel, P.C., Houston, TX, for Amici Curiae Matthew Desmond, National Low Income Housing Coalition, Connect Community, Come Dream Come Build. Eliot Fielding Turner, Norton Rose Fulbright US, L.L.P., Houston, TX, Brian Klosterboer, Savannah Kumar, American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, Houston, TX, Sandra Park, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Women's Rights Project, New York, NY, Adriana Cecilia Pinon, American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, Houston, TX, Kevin St. George, Houston, TX, Vanisha Weatherspoon, Austin, TX, for Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Texas, Barry Friedman, Leah Litman. Michael Philip Aigen, Stinson, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, Harvey L. Reiter, Stinson, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Texas Appleseed. Eric Gregory Dunn, National Housing Law Project, Richmond, VA, for Amicus Curiae National Housing Law Project. Chad Michael Ruback, Ruback Law Firm, Dallas, TX, for Amici Curiae American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, Center for Health Policy and Law at Northeastern University School of Law, ChangeLab Solutions, Children's Healthwatch, George Consortium, GLMA Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality, National Hispanic Medical Association, National Medical Association, Public Health Law Watch, Southern Poverty Law Center, Texas Low Income Housing Information Service, Emily A. Benfer, Kim M. Blankenship, Katherine L. Chen, Gregg Gonsalves, Peter Hepburn, Danya E. Keene, Kathryn M. Leifheit, Michael Z. Levy, Sabriya A. Linton, Craig E. Pollack, Julia Raifman, Gabriel L. Schwartz, David Vlahov. Anthony T. Caso, Constitutional Counsel Group, Anaheim, CA, for Amicus Curiae Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. Ilya Shapiro, Esq., Cato Institute, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae Cato Institute, Randy E. Barnett, Reason Foundation, Individual Rights Foundation, Independence Institutute. Judd Edward Stone, II, Lanora Christine Pettit, Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Solicitor General, Austin, TX, for Amicus Curiae State of Texas. Charles R. Watson, Jr., Nicole Leonard Cordoba, Greenberg Traurig, L.L.P., Austin, TX, for Amicus Curiae Texas Apartment Association. Megan Heuberger Berge, Esq., Baker Botts, L.L.P., Washington, DC, David Brendan Goode, Baker Botts, L.L.P., Austin, TX, for Amicus Curiae, National Association of Home Builders.

The appellants moved to dismiss this appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). We Grant that motion and dismiss this appeal subject to the terms articulated below.

This case involves the constitutionality of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's nationwide eviction moratorium, which prevented landlords from exercising their state law eviction rights. Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19, 85 Fed. Reg. 55,292 (Sept. 4, 2020). The most recent iteration of the moratorium expired October 3, 2021. Temporary Halt in Residential Eviction to Precent the Further Spread of COVID-19, 86 Fed. Reg. 43,244 (Aug. 6, 2021). Moreover, another court's judgment invalidating the CDC's eviction moratorium on the grounds that the moratorium exceeded the CDC's authority under the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 264, is now final. Alabama Ass'n of Realtors v. Dep't of Health & Hum. Services, No. 20-CV-3377, ––– F.Supp.3d ––––, 2021 WL 1779282 (D.D.C. May 5, 2021).

The government contends that the expiry of the most recent version of the CDC's eviction moratorium renders the present controversy moot. It also contends that the dispute is moot because it voluntarily ceased enforcement of the eviction moratorium even before October 3, the formal expiration date, acceding to the finality of Alabama Association of Realtors by dismissing its pending appeal in that case. Alabama Ass'n of Realtors, No. 21-5093, Doc. Nos. 1912768, 1912769 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 3, 2021). Nevertheless, the government maintains that the CDC has constitutional authority to issue the moratorium.

Appellees respond that the appeal is not moot because the parties still dispute whether the government has constitutional power under the Commerce Clause to invade individual property rights by limiting landlords’ use of state court eviction remedies. The government maintains it has such authority. And in the government's view, espoused at oral argument, that constitutional power is in no way limited to combatting the ongoing pandemic; the government asserts it can wield that staggering constitutional authority for any reason. Appellees further contend the proposed dismissal is a pretext to avoid appellate review of the constitutional question.

After considering the record and the parties’ oral arguments, we find it unnecessary to decide mootness. Instead, we grant the motion to dismiss the appeal “on terms ․ fixed by the court.” Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). To be precise, our dismissal does not abrogate the district court's judgment or opinion, both of which remain in full force according to the express concession of the government during oral argument and in briefing.

It Is Ordered that appellant's voluntary motion to dismiss is Granted subject to the forgoing condition.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.

Per Curiam:* FN* Judge Haynes joins only in dismissing this appeal.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network