阿拉巴马州房地产经纪人协会诉卫生与公众服务部:联邦驱逐禁令的终止限制了对美国疾病控制与预防中心法定权力的广泛解释

IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW American Journal of Law & Medicine Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI:10.1017/amj.2022.7
Christina Fuleihan
{"title":"阿拉巴马州房地产经纪人协会诉卫生与公众服务部:联邦驱逐禁令的终止限制了对美国疾病控制与预防中心法定权力的广泛解释","authors":"Christina Fuleihan","doi":"10.1017/amj.2022.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health andHuman Services: End of Federal EvictionMoratoriumCurtails Expansive Interpretation of CDC’s Statutory Authority—Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the labor market, millions of Americans experienced sharp reductions in household income and faced increased housing insecurity.1 Record levels of unemployment, destabilized communities, and a lack of affordable housing all contributed to increased risk of bankruptcy and foreclosure.2 Estimates showed that 30 to 40 million Americans would be at risk of eviction during the COVID-19 pandemic without government intervention.3 As federal, state, and local governments failed to renew expiring housing protections, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) announced its own federal eviction mortarium.4 This unprecedented action raised serious implementation, constitutionality, and statutory concerns. Numerous courts reviewed challenges to the federal eviction moratorium between 2020 to 2021, but analyseswere inconsistent.5 InAlabama Association of Realtors (“AAR”) v. Department of Health andHuman Services (“HHS”), the Supreme Court of the United States (“Supreme Court”) confirmed that the federal eviction moratorium was unlawful.6 Consequently, the CDC’s federal eviction moratorium ended on August 26, 2021. In AAR v. HHS, trade associations, real estate professionals, and rental management corporations (“Plaintiffs”) brought suit against the HHS, CDC, and several government officials (“Government”) challenging the federal eviction moratorium on statutory and constitutional grounds.7 On May 5, 2021, the United States District Court for","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"47 1","pages":"513 - 522"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services: End of Federal Eviction Moratorium Curtails Expansive Interpretation of CDC’s Statutory Authority\",\"authors\":\"Christina Fuleihan\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/amj.2022.7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health andHuman Services: End of Federal EvictionMoratoriumCurtails Expansive Interpretation of CDC’s Statutory Authority—Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the labor market, millions of Americans experienced sharp reductions in household income and faced increased housing insecurity.1 Record levels of unemployment, destabilized communities, and a lack of affordable housing all contributed to increased risk of bankruptcy and foreclosure.2 Estimates showed that 30 to 40 million Americans would be at risk of eviction during the COVID-19 pandemic without government intervention.3 As federal, state, and local governments failed to renew expiring housing protections, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) announced its own federal eviction mortarium.4 This unprecedented action raised serious implementation, constitutionality, and statutory concerns. Numerous courts reviewed challenges to the federal eviction moratorium between 2020 to 2021, but analyseswere inconsistent.5 InAlabama Association of Realtors (“AAR”) v. Department of Health andHuman Services (“HHS”), the Supreme Court of the United States (“Supreme Court”) confirmed that the federal eviction moratorium was unlawful.6 Consequently, the CDC’s federal eviction moratorium ended on August 26, 2021. In AAR v. HHS, trade associations, real estate professionals, and rental management corporations (“Plaintiffs”) brought suit against the HHS, CDC, and several government officials (“Government”) challenging the federal eviction moratorium on statutory and constitutional grounds.7 On May 5, 2021, the United States District Court for\",\"PeriodicalId\":7680,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Law & Medicine\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"513 - 522\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Law & Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.7\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

阿拉巴马州房地产经纪人协会诉卫生与公众服务部:联邦驱逐禁令的结束限制了对疾病预防控制中心法定权力的广泛解释——由于新冠肺炎疫情对劳动力市场的影响,数百万美国人的家庭收入急剧减少,住房不安全状况加剧,不稳定的社区和缺乏负担得起的住房都增加了破产和丧失抵押品赎回权的风险。2估计显示,如果没有政府干预,在新冠肺炎大流行期间,3000万至4000万美国人将面临被驱逐的风险。3由于联邦、州和地方政府未能延长即将到期的住房保护,美国疾病控制与预防中心(“CDC”)宣布了自己的联邦驱逐死刑。4这一前所未有的行动引起了人们对执行、合宪性和法定问题的严重关注。许多法院审查了2020年至2021年间对联邦暂缓驱逐令的质疑,但分析结果不一致。5在阿拉巴马州房地产经纪人协会(“AAR”)诉卫生与公众服务部(“HHS”)一案中,美国最高法院(“最高法院”)确认联邦暂缓驱逐是非法的。6因此,美国疾病控制与预防中心的联邦暂缓驱逐令于2021年8月26日结束。在AAR诉HHS一案中,行业协会、房地产专业人士和租赁管理公司(“原告”)以法律和宪法为由,对HHS、CDC和几名政府官员(“政府”)提起诉讼,对联邦暂缓驱逐令提出质疑。7 2021年5月5日,美国地方法院
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services: End of Federal Eviction Moratorium Curtails Expansive Interpretation of CDC’s Statutory Authority
Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health andHuman Services: End of Federal EvictionMoratoriumCurtails Expansive Interpretation of CDC’s Statutory Authority—Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the labor market, millions of Americans experienced sharp reductions in household income and faced increased housing insecurity.1 Record levels of unemployment, destabilized communities, and a lack of affordable housing all contributed to increased risk of bankruptcy and foreclosure.2 Estimates showed that 30 to 40 million Americans would be at risk of eviction during the COVID-19 pandemic without government intervention.3 As federal, state, and local governments failed to renew expiring housing protections, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) announced its own federal eviction mortarium.4 This unprecedented action raised serious implementation, constitutionality, and statutory concerns. Numerous courts reviewed challenges to the federal eviction moratorium between 2020 to 2021, but analyseswere inconsistent.5 InAlabama Association of Realtors (“AAR”) v. Department of Health andHuman Services (“HHS”), the Supreme Court of the United States (“Supreme Court”) confirmed that the federal eviction moratorium was unlawful.6 Consequently, the CDC’s federal eviction moratorium ended on August 26, 2021. In AAR v. HHS, trade associations, real estate professionals, and rental management corporations (“Plaintiffs”) brought suit against the HHS, CDC, and several government officials (“Government”) challenging the federal eviction moratorium on statutory and constitutional grounds.7 On May 5, 2021, the United States District Court for
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
16.70%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: desde Enero 2004 Último Numero: Octubre 2008 AJLM will solicit blind comments from expert peer reviewers, including faculty members of our editorial board, as well as from other preeminent health law and public policy academics and professionals from across the country and around the world.
期刊最新文献
A Protected Class, An Unprotected Condition, and A Biomarker - A Method/Formula for Increased Diversity in Clinical Trials for the African American Subject with Benign Ethnic Neutropenia (BEN) - CORRIGENDUM. "The Timeless Explosion of Fantasy's Dream": How State Courts Have Ignored the Supreme Court's Decision in Panetti v. Quarterman - ERRATUM. Mental Health Matters: A Look At Abortion Law Post-Dobbs - ERRATUM. Abortion Access for Women in Custody in the Wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. How The "Great Resignation" and COVID Unemployment Have Eroded the Employer Sponsored Insurance Model and Access to Healthcare.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1