Federal judge overturns national eviction ban

Real Estate

An eviction notice in Los Angeles.
Lucy Nicholson | Reuters

Federal Judge Dabney Friedrich struck down on Wednesday the national eviction moratorium, potentially leaving millions of Americans at risk of losing their homes.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has banned most evictions across the country since September. President Joe Biden has since extended that protection to renters until July.

Some 1 in 5 renters across the U.S. are behind on their payments amid the pandemic, and states are scrambling to disburse more than $45 billion in rental assistance.

More from Personal Finance:
How Biden’s capital gains proposal may hit middle-class home seller
Biden’s inherited real estate tax may impact more people than just the wealthy
How Biden’s real estate tax plan may hit smaller property investors

Housing advocates have said that the national ban is necessary to stave off an unprecedented displacement of Americans, which could worsen the pandemic just as the country is turning a corner.

Researchers have found that allowing evictions to continue in certain states has caused as many as 433,700 excess cases of Covid-19 and 10,700 additional deaths in the U.S. between March and September, before the CDC ban went into effect nationwide.

At least two other federal judges have questioned the CDC’s power to ban evictions. And landlords have criticized the policy, saying they can’t afford to continue housing people for free.

The decision from U.S. District Judge Friedrich of the District of Columbia, who was appointed to the court in 2017 by former President Donald Trump, is a victory for the property owners who’ve challenged the CDC’s moratorium.

It’s not yet clear if the impact of the decision will be widespread, said Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. She was hopeful on Wednesday it wouldn’t.

“Several court rulings have attempted to strike down the moratorium, but all had limited application,” Yentel said. “While this ruling is written more starkly than previous ones, it likely has equally limited application, impacting only the plaintiffs who brought the case.”

This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *