In the United States, the Supreme Court has lifted the ban on evictions of tenants

On Thursday, August 26, the US Supreme Court lifted a moratorium on tenant evictions, which was scheduled until October. The highest US court sided with the homeowners, who said they were victims of unjustified measures, and argued that any further renewal of the moratorium should be decided by Congress — not health officials, who were here previously at the origin of these actions.

And so it was decided to halt evictions for the first time in 2020, when the United States, like the rest of the world, was facing the first waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in social hardship and an astounding unemployment rate. When the ban expired at the end of July, President Joe Biden’s administration urged US lawmakers to pass urgent legislation to extend it.

Elected officials didn’t succeed before Congress stopped working for the summer recess. Then the left wing of the Democratic Party increased the pressure on Biden, the elected member of the House of Representatives, Corey Bush, even camping for several days in front of Capitol Hill. This is how the health authorities ended up They decide for themselves a new endowment, then relying on the risks to public health to justify their decision.

Increased risk of exposure to Covid-19

“In the event that a moratorium on expulsion imposed by federal authorities continues, Congress must specifically authorize it.”It swept the Supreme Court, with a conservative majority, in a fifteen-page argument. The White House immediately announced the ” disappointment “. “Because of this decision, families will have to face painful evictions, and communities across the country will face an increased risk of exposure to Covid-19.”Spokesperson for the President of the United States, Jen Psaki.

President Biden once again calls on all entities that can – From cities and states to local courts, landlords and ministerial agencies – to act urgently to prevent evictions”, she added.

The American executive expected that this stay would be challenged in court, but he hoped to give himself enough time to pay the money intended for the tenants, which would have helped them pay their rent, but their payments were slowed significantly.