Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

2 

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

First,  it  is  far  from  “demonstrably”  clear  that  the  CDC
lacks the power to issue its modified moratorium order.  The 
CDC’s current order is substantially more tailored than its 
prior eviction moratorium, which automatically applied na-
tionwide.  Justified by the Delta-variant surge, the modified 
order targets only those regions currently experiencing sky-
rocketing rates.  86 Fed. Reg. 43244, 43245, 43250 (2021).
If  a  covered  county  “no  longer  experiences  substantial  or
high levels of community transmission,” the order “will no 
longer apply” there.  Id., at 43250.  To illustrate the differ-
ence,  when  we  denied  applicants’  last  motion,  fewer  than 
20% of counties would have been covered under the modi-
fied  moratorium  order’s  criteria.    See  CDC,  COVID–19 
State Profile Report 476 (June 25, 2021).  Today, however,
that figure is over 90%.  See infra, at 7. 

To be protected from eviction, a tenant must reside in a 

covered area and attest that he or she: 

(1) has “used best efforts to obtain all available govern-
mental assistance for rent or housing”; 

(2) satisfies certain income requirements; 

(3)  is  unable  to  pay  rent  “due  to  substantial  loss  of 
household income, loss of 
compensable  hours  of 
work or wages, a lay-off, or extraordinary out-of-pocket 
medical expenses”; 

(4) continues to “us[e] best efforts to make timely par-
tial rent payments that are as close to the full rent pay-
ment as . . . permit[ted]”; and 

(5)  has  “no  other  available  housing  options.”    Id.,  at 
43245. 

Unlike  under  New  York’s  moratorium,  see  Chrysafis  v. 
Marks, post, at 1, landlords remain free to “challeng[e]” in
court “the truthfulness of a tenant’s . . . declaration”  that 
he or she qualifies for the order’s protection.  86 Fed. Reg.