Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

6 

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

spread of disease is markedly different from the direct tar-
geting of disease that characterizes the measures identified 
in  the  statute.  Reading  both  sentences  together,  rather
than the first in isolation, it is a stretch to maintain that 
§361(a) gives the CDC the authority to impose this eviction
moratorium. 

Even if the text were ambiguous, the sheer scope of the
CDC’s  claimed  authority  under  §361(a)  would  counsel 
against the Government’s interpretation.  We expect Con-
gress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exer-
cise  powers  of  “vast  ‘economic  and  political  significance.’ ”  
Utility  Air  Regulatory  Group  v.  EPA,  573  U. S.  302,  324 
(2014) (quoting FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 
529 U. S. 120, 160 (2000)).  That is exactly the kind of power
that the CDC claims here.  At least 80% of the country, in-
cluding between 6 and 17 million tenants at risk of eviction,
falls within the moratorium.  See Response in Opposition 
26, 29.  While the parties dispute the financial burden on
landlords,  Congress  has  provided  nearly  $50  billion  in 
emergency  rental  assistance—a  reasonable  proxy  of  the 
moratorium’s  economic  impact.    See  86  Fed.  Reg.  43247.
And the issues at stake are not merely financial.  The mor-
atorium intrudes into an area that is the particular domain 
of state law: the landlord-tenant relationship.  See Lindsey 
v. Normet, 405 U. S. 56, 68–69 (1972).  “Our precedents re-
quire  Congress  to  enact  exceedingly  clear  language  if  it
wishes  to  significantly  alter  the  balance  between  federal
and state power and the power of the Government over pri-
vate property.”  United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture 
River Preservation Assn., 590 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2020) (slip 
op., at 15–16).

Indeed, the Government’s read of §361(a) would give the
CDC a breathtaking amount of authority.  It is hard to see 
what measures this interpretation would place outside the 
CDC’s reach, and the Government has identified no limit in 
§361(a)  beyond  the  requirement  that  the  CDC  deem  a