Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf
Page Number: 4

4 

ALABAMA ASSN. OF REALTORS v. DEPARTMENT 
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVS. 
Per Curiam 

omitted); see also Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009) 
(listing  the  four  traditional  stay  factors:  “(1)  whether  the 
stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely 
to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be 
irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of 
the  stay  will  substantially  injure  the  other  parties  inter-
ested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest 
lies” (citation omitted)).  The D. C. Circuit agreed, though it
rated the Government’s arguments more highly.  Alabama 
Assn.  of  Realtors  v.  Department  of  Health  and  Human 
Servs., 2021 WL 2221646 (June 2, 2021). 

This Court declined to vacate the stay.  Alabama Assn. of 
Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Servs., post, 
p. ___.  JUSTICE KAVANAUGH concurred, explaining that he
agreed with the District Court that the CDC’s moratorium
exceeded  its  statutory  authority.    But  because  the  CDC 
planned  to  end  the  moratorium  in  only  a  few  weeks,  and 
because that time would allow for additional and more or-
derly  distribution  of  congressionally  appropriated  rental-
assistance funds, he concluded that the balance of equities
justified  leaving  the  stay  in  place.    JUSTICE  THOMAS, 
JUSTICE ALITO, JUSTICE GORSUCH, and JUSTICE BARRETT 
noted that they would vacate the stay. 

The  moratorium  expired  on  July  31,  2021.    Three  days
later, the CDC reimposed it.  See 86 Fed. Reg. 43244.  Apart
from slightly narrowing the geographic scope, the new mor-
atorium is indistinguishable from the old. 

With the moratorium once again in place, the plaintiffs
returned  to  the  District  Court  to  seek  vacatur  of  its  stay. 
The District Court agreed with the plaintiffs that the stay
was no longer warranted for two reasons.  First, the Gov-
ernment was unlikely to succeed on the merits, given the
four  votes  to  vacate  the  stay  in  this  Court  and  JUSTICE 
KAVANAUGH’s  concurring  opinion.    2021  WL  3577367,  *6 
(Aug.  13,  2021).    Second,  the  equities  had  shifted  in  the
plaintiffs’ favor: Vaccine and rental-assistance distribution