Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services

Supreme Court of the United States · 2021 · Administrative Law

594 U.S. 758 (2021)

Updated August 1, 2026

Administrative Lawmajor questionseviction moratoriumCDCPublic Health Service Act42 U.S.C. §264(a)clear congressional authorizationagency authority

Facts

After Congress enacted a 120-day statutory eviction moratorium in the CARES Act and then did not renew it when it expired, the CDC imposed its own broader nationwide moratorium covering all residential properties and backed by criminal penalties. The CDC relied on §361(a) of the Public Health Service Act, which authorizes regulations necessary to prevent the interstate spread of communicable disease and lists measures such as inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, and destruction of contaminated animals or articles. The moratorium was extended several times, expired on July 31, 2021, and three days later the CDC reimposed a new moratorium that, aside from a somewhat narrower geographic scope, was indistinguishable from the old one. Plaintiffs contended that §361(a) did not authorize such a sweeping eviction ban.

Issue

Whether the CDC likely had statutory authority under 42 U.S.C. §264(a) to impose a broad federal eviction moratorium, such that the District Court's stay of its judgment vacating the moratorium should remain in place. More specifically, the question was whether the applicants were likely to succeed on the merits and whether the equities justified continuing the stay.

Rule

An agency must have clear congressional authorization before it may exercise powers of vast economic and political significance. Reading §361(a) as a whole, the provision authorizes measures directly aimed at preventing the interstate spread of disease, such as those akin to inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, and destruction of contaminated property, and does not clearly authorize a nationwide eviction moratorium of sweeping scope.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

During a severe influenza outbreak, the National Health Response Bureau relies on an old federal statute authorizing regulations necessary to prevent interstate disease spread, followed by examples such as inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, and destruction of infected animals or articles. The Bureau orders a nationwide six-month suspension of all residential mortgage foreclosures, backed by civil fines, reasoning that displaced homeowners may double up with others and spread disease.

If challenged, which is the strongest argument that the Bureau likely exceeded its statutory authority?

Explanation. The majority held that when an agency claims power of vast economic and political significance, Congress must speak clearly. A nationwide foreclosure moratorium resembles the kind of sweeping housing-market intervention the Court treated as beyond a general disease-control statute lacking specific authorization. The problem is not that housing can never be regulated, nor that penalties are civil rather than criminal; it is the absence of clear congressional authorization for such a major measure.