1

Suppose the Supreme Court strikes down both the CDC's eviction ban and all local bans.

What happens if local governments ignore the Supreme Court and still refuse to evict? Can individual sheriffs, deputies etc follow the Supreme Court's decision and carry out evictions?

Can the federal government create special "eviction police" to override local law and enforce the Court's decision? (The answer is very likely yes, given civil rights used federal troops, but this seems like a very major use of federal power over local matters.)

And in response to "court needs to order eviction ", you need to cite that because it isn't mentioned. Example from NY

A tenant shall include an occupant of one or more rooms in a rooming house or a resident, not including a transient occupant, of one or more rooms in a hotel who has been in possession for thirty consecutive days or longer;  he shall not be removed from possession except in a special proceeding

With "special proceeding" not further defined. Could it be a proceeding in another court? Or no court? The contract could specify the venue, but isn't the entire issue being due to the contract being invalid under some law?

16
  • 1
    Where would the sheriff get the eviction order if government won't evict? Are you saying the judges would still have proceedings and issue orders? – Ron Beyer May 20 at 13:32
  • 2
    That's not how evictions work... – Ron Beyer May 20 at 15:46
  • 1
    It's not like that though, an officer isn't intervening in a crime in progress, a court needs to determine the validity of the eviction request because it's a contractual matter, not a criminal one. – Ron Beyer May 20 at 15:53
  • 2
    They aren't trespassing until they are ordered out. Until there is a court order, it's their home by contract. – Ron Beyer May 20 at 15:56
  • 3
    Last one before I let somebody else try... They aren't trespassing! They aren't trespassing until a court determines that they have no right to be there any longer. There is a long process to determine that, until then, they are residing in thier legal home, not trespassing, even if they aren't paying rent. – Ron Beyer May 20 at 16:02
1

This would very much depend on the exact wording of any such supreme court decision. Since no such decision has been made, there is no way to see what exactly it says.

Eviction Law is largely local. Federal courts, and the Supreme Court in particular, do not interfere in local (state) law unless a valid constitutional federal law contradicts state law, or someone's federal constitutional rights are being violated, or the state law is in some other way in violation of the Federal Constitution. It is hard to see how an eviction ban would fall under any of those, but I suppose th4e Court could hold that such a ban violated the Due Process rights of landlords. In that case local courts might be directed to issue eviction orders without considerations the invalid state law or order.

But this is all wholly speculative, as no such case has to my knowledge, even been filed, much less decided.

3
  • Ok good answer. – John D May 20 at 16:50
  • 1
    There may be no Supreme Court decisions specifically ruling on state and local eviction bans, but there are plenty of cases on very closely related bans. If I get a chance, I will write up a brief answer. PS FWIW, these decisions suggest the Court would uphold the bans. – Just a guy May 20 at 16:58
  • 2
    @Just I suspect that such bans would be upheld;f also, but was trying to work with the hypothetical to the extent possible. – David Siegel May 20 at 16:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.