The Supreme Court overturns the Biden administration’s illegal seizure of property
OPINION | COLUMN | THE BROADSIDE REVIEW
The Supreme Court took swift action to rebuke a lawless executive branch Thursday, bringing a much-needed victory for the constitutionally protected right of property ownership in the process.
In the 6-3 decision to overrule the Biden administration’s illegal eviction moratorium, the court’s conservative majority stated that the order, initially issued by the CDC, placed “millions” of landlords “at risk of irreparable harm” by denying them the money required to conduct business with no guarantee that they would be able to recover.
“Many landlords have modest means,” the unsigned opinion stated. “And preventing them from evicting tenants who breach their leases intrudes on one of the fundamental elements of property ownership: the right to exclude.” Kudos to the court for sticking to the merits of the case, rather than taking the opportunity to, justifiably, smack down the president by including his actions in their write-up.
But the court not getting its licks in is hardly the biggest mystery. That award goes to the question: Why the three dissensions from the court’s liberals?
The three liberals declined to lift the eviction ban back in June, while four of the court’s six conservatives stated they would lift the ban in accordance with a lower court’s ruling that the CDC lacked the legal authority to nullify evictions.
Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberals along with Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The latter wrote a one-paragraph explanation stating that he agreed the moratorium was illegal but that it should be allowed to sunset naturally at the end of July when it was set to expire.
Kavanaugh originally intended to show mercy — to allow the government time to disperse the $47 billion in aid to help those facing the loss of their homes and give congress time to act if they so chose to. His mercy was a mistake.
President Biden extended the order after Congress declined to. Ostensibly, Biden capitulated because he faced pressure from one progressive representative that decided to camp outside the capitol. He admitted at the time that he lacked the authority to do so. In other words, the president exceeded his power and violated the law — an impeachable offense.
The three liberals should have joined the conservatives to assert their legitimacy as a co-equal power. Instead, Justice Breyer penned a dissenting opinion that had no limiting principle. If the CDC wished to force Americans to quarter its personnel in their homes, then that is the way it must be to fight whatever public health threat exists, whether it be a novel coronavirus or “white rage.”
Congress should have also taken measures to assert that it would not be usurped — but the idea of the legislative branch actually taking any sort of principled stand to defend its mandate is unthinkable in this age. No. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Progressives intended to let this go back to the Supreme Court the entire time. By setting the court up to defend the American principle of owning property, the Progressives were hoping to blame every evicted mother, every jobless head-of-household on the cruel and “illegitimate Trump court.”
If not for Biden’s debacle in Afghanistan claiming national media attention, you could expect to see Progressive House members sounding the klaxons while declaring that the court must be packed to prevent such cruelty in the future. Though, they still may try. And a compliant media that may be getting skittish on the constant criticism of a Democratic president may just take the bait.
There was always a second target on the minds of Progressives, though. That target was a class of evil people, one vilified for daring to make money through the ownership of capital: landlords.
Progressives despise the idea that someone may own land that they charge other people to live on. They treat the landlords as though they are the robber baron capitalists of yesteryear; this band of greedy exploiters must be stopped so that the government may take its rightful place as the only property owner.
That is the only take there is since the Left obviously does not see any problem with the concept of rental properties. For decades, the Left has made issuing strict zoning requirements that discourage single-family homes from being constructed in favor of large apartment complexes subject to “affordable unit pricing” — a prime directive of theirs.
The idea of public housing projects like those in New York City is a fairy tale in Progressive circles. And they offer the added bonus of increasing government spending through efficiencies such as the $1,973 per unit cost of switching New York City’s public housing units to LEDs. The total bill comes to about $33 million.
The level at which the Biden administration has adopted the Progressive “critical theory” model that the old institutions must be torn down to make way for the Left’s brave new utopia is appalling.
But, for as long as there is always a perpetual crisis and perpetual evildoers, such as those who would dare own property for a living, there will always be an excuse to try overreach executive power and a gaggle of cheerleaders who will support it. Never mind that, with a surge of open jobs in the country and billions in federal money available, the effect on renters is theoretical compared to very real losses experienced by landlords.
According to figures from the Urban Institute, the amount of unpaid rent in the U.S. could exceed $52 billion — with those losses increasing by about $13 billion a month, The Wall Street Journal reports.
Hopefully, now, thanks to the court, rental property owners can start to right the ship. The good news for them is that, so far, Nancy Pelosi has stopped short of promising to take the matter back up in Congress, instead, using her time to cast the co-equal branch as “cruel.” Who would have thought? Notorious Capitol camper Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) has other plans, as she vowed to bring the matter back up. Even if the House were successful, it would be hard to see how the legislative branch could overrule the constitutional right of property ownership without an amendment. Let’s hope their time is better spent arguing dead-on-arrival bills.
The Broadside Review is a substack column and content partner of The New Jersey Editorial Report. Please subscribe to them or check out their column here.
