Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/21a8_3fb4.pdf
Page Number: 1

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

1 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 21A8 
_________________ 

PANTELIS CHRYSAFIS, ET AL. v. 
LAWRENCE K. MARKS 

ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

[August 12, 2021] 

  The application for injunctive relief presented to JUSTICE 
SOTOMAYOR  and  by  her  referred  to  the  Court  is  granted 
pending  disposition  of  the  appeal  in  the  United  States 
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and disposition of 
the  petition  for  a  writ  of  certiorari,  if  such  writ  is  timely 
sought.   Should  the  petition  for  a writ  of  certiorari  be  de-
nied, this order shall terminate automatically.  In the event 
the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order shall 
terminate  upon  the  sending  down  of  the  judgment  of  this 
Court. 
  This order enjoins the enforcement of only Part A of the 
COVID  Emergency  Eviction  and  Foreclosure  Prevention 
Act (CEEFPA).  2020 N. Y. Laws ch. 381.  That is the only 
relief  applicants  seek.    See  Case  No.  2:21-cv-02516,  ECF 
No. 1 at 9; Emergency Application for Writ of Injunction 7, 
40.   If  a tenant  self-certifies financial  hardship,  Part  A  of 
CEEFPA  generally  precludes  a  landlord  from  contesting 
that certification and denies the landlord a hearing.  This 
scheme violates the Court’s longstanding teaching that or-
dinarily “no man can be a judge in his own case” consistent 
with the Due Process Clause.  In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 
133,  136  (1955);  see  United  States  v.  James  Daniel  Good 
Real Property, 510 U. S. 43, 53 (1993) (due process generally 
requires a hearing). 
  This order does not enjoin the enforcement of the Tenant 
Safe Harbor Act (TSHA), which applicants do not challenge.