Court Rules Against CDC's Eviction Ban

In a significant ruling, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has allowed a takings lawsuit against the federal eviction moratorium to proceed, overturning a previous trial court decision. The case, Darby Development Co. v. United States, challenges the legality of the 2020-21 eviction moratorium imposed by the CDC, which was dismissed by the US Court of Claims on the grounds that the moratorium was not properly authorized. The appellate court's majority opinion, authored by Judge Sharon Prost, asserts that even unlawful government actions can be considered "authorized" for takings claims if they fall within the agent's normal duties. The ruling emphasizes that government agents acting in good faith, even without explicit statutory authority, may still be liable for property seizures. This decision could reshape takings jurisprudence, potentially imposing significant liability on government agencies for unauthorized actions. The majority argues that if the government frequently engages in illegal property seizures, it should face substantial consequences, thereby discouraging the adoption of legitimate government programs due to the risk of takings liability. The court also debated whether the CDC acted within its normal duties when enacting the eviction moratorium, a critical factor in determining the authorization of the taking. The dissenting opinion raised concerns about the implications of categorically exempting government actions from being treated as physical takings. If upheld, this ruling could set a crucial precedent regarding the nature of authorization in takings claims and the legality of eviction moratoria.