Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/21a8_3fb4.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

3 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

landlords and one landlords’ association, seek an “extraor-
dinary” form of relief: “an injunction against enforcement of 
a  presumptively  constitutional  state  legislative  act,”  Re-
spect Maine PAC v. McKee, 562 U. S. 996 (2010), in circum-
stances where the request for an injunction was denied in 
the lower courts, and the court of appeals has yet to issue a 
substantive ruling.  Moreover, the challenged law will ex-
pire in less than three weeks.  Under these circumstances, 
such  drastic  relief  would  only  be  appropriate  if  “the  legal 
rights  at  issue  [we]re  indisputably  clear  and,  even  then, 
sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circum-
stances.”  South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 
590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring) (slip 
op.,  at  2)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    I  conclude 
that this strict standard is not met here, for three reasons. 
  First, the legal rights at issue in this case are not “indis-
putably  clear.”    Applicants  argue  that  CEEFPA  denies 
landlords due process of law because once a tenant submits 
an  attestation  of  financial  hardship,  evictions cannot  pro-
ceed and the landlord cannot challenge the tenant’s claim 
of hardship, for example, in court.  Respondent argues, how-
ever, that the law is best viewed not as a deprivation of the 
right to challenge a tenant’s hardship claim but as simply 
delaying the exercise of that right—as of now for less than 
three  weeks  until  the  law expires.   After  August  31,  New 
York’s  eviction  proceedings  will  be  conducted  exactly  as 
they were before CEEFPA’s enactment.  Our precedents do 
not make it “indisputably clear” that this delay violates the 
Constitution.  See Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 410 (1975) 
(due  process  is  not  offended  when  “the  gravamen  of  [the] 
claim is not total deprivation . . . but only delay”). 
  Applicants also argue that CEEFPA violates their First 
Amendment right against compelled speech, because it re-
quires  them  to  provide their  tenants with  certain  notices.  
However, there are persuasive arguments that CEEFPA re-