Chrysafis v. Marks
Application for injunctive relief granted on Aug. 12, 2021. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.
Issues: (1) Whether New York’s eviction moratorium law, which continues to block property owners from pursuing eviction proceedings or otherwise challenging their tenants’ bald claims of COVID-19 “hardship,” and compels them to serve as the government’s mouthpieces in transmitting government-drafted messages, declaration forms, and lists of recommended legal service providers to their tenants, deprives these property owners of their due process rights and violates their First Amendment rights against compelled speech; and (2) whether the courts below erred in concluding that Jacobson v. Massachusetts requires the application of deferential, rational basis review in evaluating constitutional challenges to government action taken in response to a public health emergency, particularly where, as here, New York has declared its “state of emergency” to be over.
| Date | Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding) |
|---|
| Jul 27 2021 | Application (21A8) for injunctive relief, submitted to Justice Sotomayor. |
| Jul 28 2021 | Response to application (21A8) requested by Justice Sotomayor, due Wednesday, August 4, 2021, by 4 p.m. |
| Aug 04 2021 | Response to application from respondent Lawrence K. Marks filed. |
| Aug 05 2021 | Reply of applicants Pantelis Chrysafis, et al. filed. |
| Aug 12 2021 | Application (21A8) referred to the Court. |
| Aug 12 2021 | Application (21A8) granted by the Court. The application for injunctive relief presented to JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and by her referred to the Court is granted pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. This order enjoins the enforcement of only Part A of the COVID Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act (CEEFPA). 2020 N. Y. Laws ch. 381. That is the only relief applicants seek. See Case No. 2:21-cv-02516, ECF No. 1 at 9; Emergency App. 7, 40. If a tenant self-certifies financial hardship, Part A of CEEFPA generally precludes a landlord from contesting that certification and denies the landlord a hearing. This scheme violates the Court’s longstanding teaching that ordinarily “no man can be a judge in his own case” consistent with the Due Process Clause. In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 133, 136 (1952); see United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U. S. 43, 53 (1993) (due process generally requires a hearing). This order does not enjoin the enforcement of the Tenant Safe Harbor Act (TSHA), which applicants do not challenge. 2020 N. Y. Laws ch. 127, §§1, 2(2)(a). Among other things, TSHA instructs New York courts to entertain a COVID-related hardship defense in eviction proceedings, assessing a tenant’s income prior to COVID, income during COVID, liquid assets, and ability to obtain government assistance. §2(2)(b). If the court finds the tenant “has suffered a financial hardship” during a statutorily-prescribed period, then it “shall [not] issue a warrant of eviction or judgment of pos-session.” §2(1).
JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting from grant of application for injunctive relief. |
