Categories
Politics

Garland Meets With State Supreme Courtroom Justices on Evictions Freeze

Biden administration officials, worried that a new freeze on evictions might be struck down in federal court — and racing to prevent a national crisis — are increasingly turning to state courts to help deliver billions in federal housing aid.

On Wednesday, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland held a virtual meeting with 35 state Supreme Court justices in an effort to encourage them to use every tool at their disposal to avert or delay evictions by ensuring landlords and tenants have access to a $47 billion fund allocated by Congress.

Only about $3 billion of that cash — roughly 7 percent — had been allocated by June 30, according to the Treasury Department, which oversees the program.

“State courts are on the front lines of this crisis,” said Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta, who has been overseeing the department’s efforts on evictions.

The effort to pay off back rent accrued during the pandemic has been hampered by resistance among some owners, who would rather evict nonpaying tenants than wait for federal payments, and sluggish efforts by states to create an infrastructure to distribute the largest allocation of housing funding in generations.

White House officials cited the need to buy more time for the aid program, along with public health concerns stemming from the Delta variant of the coronavirus, in drafting the new moratorium after the old one expired on July 31.

During Wednesday’s meeting, Mr. Garland cited several state initiatives as models for localities to follow, including an order by Michigan’s State Supreme Court requiring courts to stay eviction proceedings for up to 45 days to allow tenants to complete applications for rental assistance, according to Justice Department officials.

Another effort Mr. Garland singled for praise was a directive by the Republican-controlled Supreme Court in Texas, which modified notices sent to tenants who are sued for eviction to make sure they are aware of the benefits.

The state’s judicial training center also created instructions for local justices of the peace to divert landlords to the federal aid program whenever possible. That move, coupled with a joint federal-state effort to simplify application forms, is already showing some results, said Chief Justice Nathan Hecht.

“I’ve been on the bench for 40 years, and to tell the truth, judges historically did not see these kinds of programs as having anything to do with them, but that is changing,” Chief Justice Hecht said in an interview.

“The key to the whole thing is that the application process has got to be easy, it’s got to be simple,” he added. “Landlords are frustrated, and tenants are facing the streets, and overall it’s a very tense time. So, we can’t be telling people it’s going to take six weeks to get your money.”

In addition to pressuring Mr. Garland to help speed the checks, the justices asked federal officials to prioritize the role of the judiciary in all aid programs — to allow state courts to more easily tap into relief money to hire landlord-tenant mediators and navigators to assist tenants who cannot afford counsel to understand their rights in court.

Categories
Politics

The Supreme Court docket’s Latest Justices Produce Some Sudden Outcomes

Justice Alito was aghast. “Today’s decision is the third installment in our epic Affordable Care Act trilogy, and it follows the same pattern as installments one and two,” he wrote, joined by Justice Gorsuch. “In all three episodes, with the Affordable Care Act facing a serious threat, the court has pulled off an improbable rescue.”

Richard J. Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard, said the decisions “suggest that several key justices are willing to temper their views to join the chief’s longstanding battle to have the court decide cases more narrowly and with a more unified voice.”

But he added a note of caution. “What remains to be seen,” he said, “is whether, notwithstanding the chief’s best efforts, his battle to promote a nonpartisan image for the court is ultimately a losing one.”

So far this term, the court’s three Democratic appointees have voted with the majority 73 percent of the time in divided cases, slightly ahead of the 72 percent rate of the six Republican appointees. In the term that ended last year, the gap was 14 percentage points in favor of Republican appointees.

The change may be explained by strategic voting. The court’s Democratic appointees have not hesitated to join unanimous decisions with conservative outcomes, as labeled by the Supreme Court Database at Washington University. The percentage of liberal decisions in unanimous cases so far this term is just 30, the lowest since at least 1953.

But the story changes in divided cases, where 64 percent of decisions have been labeled liberal, the highest since 1968.

“Going into this term,” Professor Epstein said, “the expectation was a bunch of divided decisions with the three Democratic appointees getting the short end of the stick. So far that prediction is way off the mark. In divided cases, the Trump appointees have moved the court to the left. If anyone got the short end of the stick, it’s this year’s most conservative justice, Alito.”