Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf
Page Number: 5

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

5 

Per Curiam 

had improved since the stay was entered, while the harm to
landlords  had  continued  to  increase.  Ibid.,  n. 3.    But  the 
court concluded that its hands were tied by the law of the 
case,  in  light  of  the  D. C.  Circuit’s  earlier  decision  not  to
vacate the stay.  Ibid.  That denial was followed by one more 
stop at the D. C. Circuit, where that court again declined to
lift the stay.  2021 WL 3721431 (Aug. 20, 2021).

Having passed through the lower courts twice, the plain-
tiffs  return  as  applicants  to  this  Court  to  again  ask  us  to
vacate the District Court’s stay. 

II 
The  District  Court  concluded  that  its  stay  is  no  longer
justified under the governing four-factor test.  See Nken v. 
Holder, supra, at 434.  We agree. 

A 

The applicants not only have a substantial likelihood of 
success on the merits—it is difficult to imagine them losing.
The Government contends that the first sentence of §361(a) 
gives the CDC broad authority to take whatever measures
it deems necessary to control the spread of COVID–19, in-
cluding issuing the moratorium.  But the second sentence 
informs the grant of authority by illustrating the kinds of 
measures that could be necessary: inspection, fumigation,
disinfection,  sanitation,  pest  extermination,  and  destruc-
tion of contaminated animals and articles.  These measures 
directly relate to preventing the interstate spread of disease 
by identifying, isolating, and destroying the disease itself. 
The CDC’s moratorium, on the other hand, relates to inter-
state infection far more indirectly: If evictions occur, some 
subset  of  tenants  might  move  from  one  State  to  another,
and some subset of that group might do so while infected 
with  COVID–19.    See  86  Fed.  Reg.  43248–43249.  This 
downstream connection between eviction and the interstate