Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

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

5 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

(CA6 2021).  Given the split among the Circuits, it is at least 
hard to say that the Government’s reading of the statute is 
“demonstrably  wrong.”  See  Coleman  v.  Paccar  Inc.,  424 
U. S.  1301,  1304  (1976)  (Rehnquist,  J.,  in  chambers).    At 
minimum, there are arguments on both sides.
  Certainly this Court did not resolve the question by deny-
ing  applicants’  last  emergency  motion,  whatever  one  Jus-
tice  might  have  said  in  a  concurrence.    The  scope  of  that 
challenged moratorium, the balance of the equities, and the 
public  interest  were  all  different.    As  is  typical  in  this
Court’s emergency orders denying extraordinary relief, we 
said almost nothing about our reasons for declining to act. 
Second,  the  balance  of  equities  strongly  favors  leaving 
the stay in place.  Applicants say they have lost “thousands 
of dollars” in rental income.  See Application 32.  That in-
jury  is  lessened  by  the  moratorium  order’s  directive  that
tenants have an obligation to make “as close to the full rent 
payment” as possible.  86 Fed. Reg. 43245.  And to compen-
sate for the shortfall, Congress has appropriated more than
$46.5 billion to help pay rent and rental arrears.  See §501, 
134 Stat. 2070–2078 (appropriating $25 billion); American 
Rescue Plan Act, 2021, Pub. L. 117–2, §3201(a)(1), 135 Stat.
54 (appropriating $21.5 billion more).  It may, as applicants 
say, take time to get that money—and that is an injury.

But compare that injury to the irreparable harm from va-
cating the stay.  COVID–19 transmission rates have spiked 
in recent weeks, reaching levels that the CDC puts as high
as last winter: 150,000 new cases per day.