The U.S. Supreme Court; Credit: Jose Luis Magana/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to lift a ban on evictions for tenants who have failed to pay all or some rent during the coronavirus pandemic.

By a 5-to-4 vote, the court left in place the nationwide moratorium on evictions put in place by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and which was challenged by the Alabama Association of Realtors.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who cast the fifth and deciding vote, wrote in a concurring opinion that he voted not to end the eviction program only because it is set to expire on July 31, "and because those few weeks will allow for additional and more orderly distribution" of the funds that Congress appropriated to provide rental assistance to those in need because of the pandemic. He added, however, that in his view Congress would have to pass new and clearer legislation to extend the moratorium past July 31.

The Biden administration has said it does not plan to extend the moratorium any further.

Also voting to leave the program intact until July 31 were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Dissenting were Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. They would have blocked the moratorium from continuing for another month.

The decision comes at a time when roughly 7 million American households say they are still behind on their rent. Many suffered job loss during the pandemic. And delays have stopped more than $46 billion in congressionally approved rental assistance from reaching many people facing eviction who need it.

Housing groups have been warning that pulling the CDC eviction protections away from people before that congressional aid can reach them would spark a wave of evictions that could otherwise be avoided.

Evictions often send families into a downward financial spiral. It can be very hard to find another place to live with an eviction on your record. People can end up living in their cars, motels when they can afford it or in homeless shelters. Research has found there's also a disparate impact on people of color.

During the pandemic, public health experts have warned — and research showed — that evictions result in more coronavirus cases because people end up living in more crowded situations, where they are more likely to catch or spread the disease.

At the outset of the pandemic, Congress adopted a limited, temporary moratorium on evictions. After Congress' moratorium lapsed last July, however, then-President Donald Trump asked the CDC to step in and issue a new eviction ban, which it did in September. In March, President Biden extended that ban, which was to expire at the end of June. Then on June 24, the Biden administration notified the Supreme Court that it had extended the moratorium until July 31. It also said that barring a rise in coronavirus cases, the "CDC does not plan to extend the Order further."

Landlords have long argued that the CDC order was an overreach and that the agency doesn't have the power to, in effect, take control over their own properties away from them.

A group of the nation's landlords challenged the eviction ban and on May 5, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled that the CDC has exceeded its authority. The judge, however, blocked her own decision from going into effect to give the government time to appeal. On June 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the stay, prompting the landlords to go to the Supreme Court.

Keeping the status quo in place "will prolong the severe financial burdens borne by landlords under the moratorium for the past nine months," the property owners said.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

After issuing its final decisions of the term Thursday, the Supreme Court on Friday granted a religious liberty case for next term and turned away challenges to longstanding decisions on qualified immunity and defamation, prompting dissents from the court's conservatives.

Court agrees to hear one religious liberty case, but rejects another

The justices agreed to consider a constitutional challenge to a school funding program in Maine that excludes private schools that teach religion.

Only half the school districts in Maine run their own high schools. The rest pay for students to attend public schools in other districts or to attend private schools. The state, however, will not fund students who attend any school that offers religious teaching.

Parents who wanted to send their children to a private Christian school challenged the law, alleging it violated their right to exercise their religion freely. The First Circuit disagreed, but now the high court will hear their case.

The justices, however, declined to hear another case about religious liberty – this one brought by a Washington state florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. She alleged that the state's antidiscrimination law violated her First Amendment rights, and in 2017, Washington's supreme court ruled against her.

Though the justices on Friday declined to hear her appeal, three of the court's conservatives—Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch—would have taken it for next term.

Thomas calls to do away with qualified immunity

Also on Friday, Justice Thomas once again called for the court to do away with qualified immunity, the legal shield for police officers that has come under intense scrutiny in the last year of racial justice protests.

Thomas was dissenting from the court's refusal to hear the case of a college student promoting Turning Point USA, a right-wing organization known for publishing lists of university professors it deems hostile to conservatives. The student alleged campus police at Arkansas State University violated her First Amendment rights when they stopped her from advertising the organization near the student union. But the campus officers escaped liability in the lower court because of qualified immunity, a doctrine created by the Supreme Court in 1967 that has evolved into a near-impenetrable bulwark for the police.

"Why should university officers," wrote Thomas, "receive the same protection as a police officer who makes a split-second decision to use force in a dangerous setting?" Going further, Thomas questioned whether the judicially-created doctrine should exist at all, an opinion that has garnered more and more bipartisan consensus in the wake of George Floyd's murder.

Thomas and Gorsuch call to overturn landmark Free Speech precedent

The court declined to hear a defamation case brought by a Miami-born international arms dealer—portrayed in the 2016 movie War Dogs—against the author of a book about his life.

The lower court dismissed the suit. It pointed to a landmark 1964 First Amendment decision, in which the high court said that publishers are immune from libel suits brought by public figures, so long as the publishers either didn't know, or had no reason to know, that the information they published was false.

Both Thomas and Gorsuch dissented, arguing the court should overturn the nearly 50-year-old precedent. In the era of disinformation, "lies impose real harm," wrote Thomas. "Instead of continuing to insulate those who perpetrate lies," said Thomas, the court should narrow First Amendment protections.

In a separate dissent, Gorsuch agreed. In 1964, publishers needed protection against libel for unpopular opinions to survive. Indeed, the court's 1964 decision was first used to protect civil rights leaders who had published a New York Times ad criticizing the Montgomery, Alabama police for repeatedly arresting Martin Luther King Jr.

But, said Gorsuch, in 2021, "it's less obvious what force [libel protections have] in a world in which everyone carries a soapbox in their hands," referring to smartphones. Now, Gorsuch wrote, "the deck seems stacked against those with traditional (and expensive) journalistic standards—and in favor of those who can disseminate the most sensational information as efficiently as possible without any particular concern for truth."

Another execution

On top of its decisions about cases next term, the justices gave Alabama the green light to execute Matthew Reeves, whose death sentence was recently overturned by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

This is the second time the justices have ruled against Reeves, who in 1998 was convicted for murder in Alabama. In 2002, Reeves first challenged his sentence in state court. He argued that because of his low IQ, his lawyer should have hired an expert to evaluate him for an intellectual disability. After 15 years of appeals, the Supreme Court denied his claim in 2017. So Reeves appealed his claim through the federal system.

But on Friday, the high court again rejected his challenge, thus allowing Alabama to move forward with his execution. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan, dissented, criticizing the state court for its brusque dismissal of Reeves's claim.

Sotomayor drew attention to "a troubling trend in which this court strains to reverse summarily any grants of relief to those facing execution." The court, wrote Sotomayor, "turns deference" to state courts "into a rule that...relief is never available to those facing execution."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Patient and health advocacy groups representing millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions are applauding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear arguments in the case of Texas v. United States this term. The case is the latest court challenge to the health care law known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The groups filed an amicus brief urging the Court’s swift action and citing the detrimental impacts and uncertainty patients would face were the case left at the lower court level.

The Nevada Supreme Court overturned its own precedent and ruled that an insurance carrier does not need to intervene or otherwise participate in a worker’s third-party claim to recover on…

The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that a group of injured police officers were obligated to repay the sick leave benefits they received while awaiting a determination of their eligibility…

The Delaware Supreme Court upheld a denial of benefits to a poultry plant worker for his occupational disease claim based on a COVID-19 infection. Case: Fowler v. Perdue Inc., No. 412, 2023,…

The Nebraska Supreme Court upheld an award of benefits to a housekeeper for a respiratory injury brought on by wearing a used face mask during the COVID-19 pandemic. Case: Prinz v.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will decide whether general contractors can be denied statutory employer status if they have not paid benefits to a subcontractor’s injured employee and whether the statutory employer defense is…

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will weigh in on the applicability of the “no-fixed-place-of-work” exception to the “going-and-coming rule” for a tree-trimming supervisor. In February, the Commonwealth Court issued a decision finding that Jorge Martinez…

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has granted review of disagreement over the proper prescription drug fee schedule for resolving workers’ compensation disputes. In January, the Commonwealth Court held that Red Book values…

The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that an employer may not contractually create common-law negligence liability by setting additional nonemployer roles or capacities when the liability is based on the same physical…

The Iowa Supreme Court overturned a finding that the Second Injury Fund was not liable for a worker’s permanent total disability after she suffered two different leg injuries. Case: Delaney v.

The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday suspended the license of a Des Moines-area sole practitioner with a long history of discipline involving the mishandling of two workers’ compensation matters. The court…

The West Virginia Supreme Court clarified the proper method for apportioning preexisting impairments that have been definitely ascertained and impact multiple body parts. Case: Logan-Mingo Area Mental Health Inc. v. Lester,…

The West Virginia Supreme Court upheld an award of benefits for a janitor who contracted Legionnaires’ disease. Case: Scottish Rite Bodies of Charleston v. Weese, No. 22-0427, 06/10/2024, published. Facts: Thomas W. Weese worked…

A divided West Virginia Supreme Court upheld the closure of a worker’s claim for temporary total disability benefits and the denial of his request to expand the scope of his…

The West Virginia Supreme Court upheld an award of benefits for a worker’s cancer and radiation exposure. Case: West Virginia Division of Highways v. Scott, No. 23-258, 08/01/2024, published. Facts: Larry Scott…

The West Virginia Supreme Court overturned an award of permanent partial disability benefits to an injured worker, finding that it was improperly based on the opinion of a doctor who failed…

The West Virginia Supreme Court upheld an award of benefits to a worker for his electric shock injury. Case: Quanta Services Inc. v. Bolling, No. 23-420, 08/01/2024, published. Facts: Zachary Bolling worked for…

The West Virginia Supreme Court upheld the authorization of a pain management consultation for an injured worker. Case: Murray American Energy Inc. v. Stapel, No. 22-923, 08/01/2024, published. Facts: Sean Stapel worked…

West Virginia Supreme Court ruled that a worker was entitled to the expansion of his claim to add post-concussional syndrome and post-traumatic headaches. Case: Murray American Energy Inc. v. Yost, No.

A divided West Virginia Supreme Court upheld an increase in a worker’s award for a back injury. Case: Murray American Energy Inc. v. Falcone, No. 22-0489, 08/01/2024, published. Facts: Brandon Falcone suffered…

The West Virginia Supreme Court upheld the denial of a doctor’s request to expand a worker’s claim to add post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety as compensable conditions. Case: Travers v. Blackhawk…

The West Virginia Supreme Court upheld the expansion of a worker’s claim to add a shoulder injury. Case: Gibson v. Blackhawk Mining LLC, No. 23-178, 08/01/2024, published. Facts: Timothy Gibson worked for…

The West Virginia Supreme Court upheld the denial of a worker's request for additional benefits and the expansion of her claim. Case: Martin v. Wal-Mart Associates Inc., No. 23-115, 08/01/2024, published. Facts: Irene Martin…

The West Virginia Supreme Court upheld the denial of a worker’s request for additional treatment and benefits, and the expansion of his claim. Case: Hankins v. Sprouting Farms Corp., No. 22-919,…

The West Virginia Supreme Court upheld an award for an additional 22% permanent partial disability to a worker for her ankle injury. Case: Butler v. D&D Quality Care Inc., No. 23-147, 08/01/2024,…

The West Virginia Supreme Court upheld the expansion of a worker’s claim to include additional conditions. Case: McKinney v. Little General Store Inc., No. 23-117, 08/01/2024, published. Facts: Marilyn McKinney worked for…

The West Virginia Supreme Court upheld a denial of permanent partial disability benefits to an injured worker. Case: Underwood v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, No. 23-118, 08/01/2024,…

A divided West Virginia Supreme Court summarily affirmed a finding that a worker had suffered a worsening of his condition attributable to a compensable lumbar injury. Case: ANR Inc. v. Stover,…

The West Virginia Supreme Court upheld the denial of a worker’s occupational pneumoconiosis claim. Case: Lewis v. Columbia West Virginia Corp., No. 23-616, 09/23/2024, published. Facts: Jackie W. Lewis Sr. worked for…

The West Virginia Supreme Court upheld the denial of permanent partial disability benefits for a worker with a back injury. Case: Helmandollar v. Blackhawk Mining LLC, No. 23-430, 09/30/2024, published. Facts: Marion Helmandollar…

The West Virginia Supreme Court upheld an award of occupational disease-dependent death benefits to a worker’s widow. Case: Appalachian Boiler & Fab LLC v. Caruthers, No. 23-345, 09/23/2024, published. Facts: Johnny A.

The West Virginia Supreme Court upheld the denial of a request to expand the scope of a worker’s claim and for additional imaging. Case: Cook v. Cecil I. Walker Machinery Co.,…

The West Virginia Supreme Court upheld the denial of a worker’s request to reopen her claim for temporary total disability benefits, additional medications and a referral to a rheumatologist. Case: Blevins…

The West Virginia Supreme Court upheld a denial of benefits for a hospital maintenance worker’s COVID-19 infection. Case: Morrill v. Lifepoint Hospitals Inc., No. 23-461, 09/23/2024, published. Facts: Curtis Morrill was a…

The West Virginia Supreme Court upheld an increase in a worker’s permanent partial disability award for a shoulder injury. Case: ACNR Resources Inc. v. Martie, No. 23-386, 09/23/2024, published. Facts: Patrick Martie…

The West Virginia Supreme Court upheld a finding that a roofer’s rare blood disorder was linked to his occupational exposure to benzene. Case: Lindy & Fred Seco General Revokable Trust v.

The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that an employer’s optional medical examination is not a reimbursable expense from a worker’s third-party recovery. Case: Brent v. Mississippi Department of Human Services, No. 2022-CT-00529-SCT,…

The Idaho Supreme Court upheld the summary dismissal of an injured worker’s civil suit against his employer based on his injuries from a piece of farm equipment his employer had…

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court will be weighing in on the proper allocation of the burden of proving the existence of available positions for an injured worker, and the suitability of those…

The West Virginia Supreme Court upheld the denial of a worker’s request for additional permanent partial disability benefits for her broken leg. Case: Gajdos v. Appalachian Electronic Instruments Inc., No. 23-720,…

Find out how this Supreme Court Decision may impact your client's cases. Plaintiff attorneys need to know and understand how this decision could impact clients' settlement dollars. Defense attorneys need…

The Alabama Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus compelling a trial court to dismiss the breach-of-contract and bad-faith claims against an insurance carrier arising out of a roofing worker’s…

The Alabama Supreme Court summarily denied a worker’s challenge to the dismissal of her retaliatory termination claim over the dissent of a justice who argued that the court should have…

The Alabama Supreme Court overturned a $3 million judgment in a wrongful death case, finding that a worker’s failure to realize a safety device was missing from a machine was…

The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that an administrative law judge’s order awarding temporary total disability benefits to an injured worker was interlocutory and not appealable. Case: Spencer County Fiscal Court v.

The Kentucky Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a worker’s challenge to the termination of her temporary total disability benefits as time-bared. Case: Arndt v. Jefferson County Public Schools, No. 2023-SC-0377-WC,…

The Kentucky Supreme Court upheld an award of benefits for a worker for a back injury with psychological overlay. Case: Laboratory Corporation of America v. Smith, No. 2023-SC-0479-WC, 08/22/2024, published. Facts: Hunter…