Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

4 

ALABAMA ASSN. OF REALTORS v. DEPARTMENT 
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVS. 
BREYER, J., dissenting 

FTC  v.  American  Tobacco  Co.,  264  U. S.  298,  305–306 
(1924).  It could also be read to provide emphasis regarding 
particular  enforcement  measures.    See  Ali  v.  Federal  Bu-
reau of Prisons, 552 U. S. 214, 226 (2008).

Applicants urge, and today’s per curiam agrees, that the
second sentence should instead be read to cabin the CDC’s 
authority.  Not only does that reading lack a clear statutory 
basis but the second sentence goes on to empower the CDC 
to take “other measures, as in [its] judgment may be neces-
sary.”  42 U. S. C. §264(a).  Furthermore, reading the pro-
vision’s  second  sentence  to  narrow  its  first  would  under-
mine Congress’ purpose.  As a key drafter explained, “[t]he
second sentence of subsection (a)” was written not to limit
the broad authority contained in the first sentence, but to 
“expressly authorize . . . inspections and . . . other steps nec-
essary  in  the  enforcement  of  quarantine.”  Hearings  on 
H.  R.  3379 before  the Subcommittee  of  the  Committee  on 
Interstate  and  Foreign  Commerce,  78th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,
139 (1944).

The per curiam also says that Congress must speak more 
clearly to authorize the CDC to address public health crises
via eviction moratoria.  But it is undisputed that the statute
permits  the  CDC  to  adopt  significant  measures  such  as
quarantines, which arguably impose greater restrictions on
individuals’ rights and state police powers than do limits on
evictions.  Indeed, the current Congress did not bristle at
the Government’s reading of the statute.  In 2020, Congress 
extended the CDC’s moratorium “issued . . . under section 
361 of the Public Health Service Act.”  Consolidated Appro-
priations Act, 2021, Pub. L. 116–260, §502, 134 Stat. 2078–
2079. 

In  any  event,  lower  courts  have  split  on  this  question.
Compare  Alabama  Assn.  of  Realtors  v.  Department  of 
Health  and  Human  Servs.,  2021  WL  2221646,  *2  (CADC, 
June 2, 2021), with Tiger Lily, LLC v. United States Dept. 
of Housing and Urban Development, 5 F. 4th 666, 669–670