


























Ines Hwang


 

 

 
 
Bellarmine Law Society Review 

 

Volume XV | Issue I       Article I 
 

 
 
Evaluating COVID-19 Eviction Crisis: Policy Responses in Prolonged 
Emergencies 

Ines Hwang 
Boston College, hwangine@bc.edu 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 



EVALUATING COVID-19 EVICTION CRISIS:  
POLICY RESPONSES IN PROLONGED EMERGENCIES 

 

INES HWANG  1

 

Abstract: COVID-19 was one of the most unexpected and devastating catastrophes 
of the 21st century. It not only forced tenants out of their homes and into hospital 
beds, but also onto the streets. In response, the U.S. government implemented 
short-term measures such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
(CDC)’s eviction moratorium and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 
Security (CARES) Act, which yielded equally temporary results. While such 
short-sighted resolutions could be attributed to the persistent nature of the 
pandemic, the federal government’s failure to adapt, and the inconsistent responses 
from state governments, ultimately led to a vicious eviction crisis across the country. 
In this paper, I will evaluate the challenges and shortcomings of the response to the 
COVID-19 eviction crisis. Through an analysis of Alabama Association of Realtors 
v. Department of Health and Human Services, as well as state and city policies 
implemented after July 2021 in Minnesota, California, Seattle, the District of 
Columbia, and New York, I will show that extensive eviction moratoriums must be 
in place during national crises to ensure adequate and adaptable legal protections. 
Ultimately, I will highlight the need for structured and collaborative efforts among 
federal, state, and local governments to effectively address eviction crises by 
balancing protections for tenants and landlords during prolonged emergencies. 

 

INTRODUCTION 

Eviction is a civil process that allows a landlord to legally remove a tenant from a rental 

property. State law, local law, leases, federal law, common law, and court rules govern this 

process. In particular, most states regulate residential renting under laws such as 25 U.S. Code 

1 Ines Hwang is an undergraduate student at Boston College majoring in Sociology and double minoring in Global 
Public Health and Common Good and Managing Social Impact and the Public Good. At Boston College, she serves as 
an Ambassador for Winston Center for Leadership and Ethics, Freshman Representative of BC Charity: Water, and part 
of Partners in Health and the Ascend program. In addition, after co-authoring “The Big Game of Fatigue and 
Resentment” with Dr. Jin-A Choi at Montclair State University, she was invited to publish a second paper for Mental 
Health Awareness Month. 

4 



§ 4137 – Lease Requirements and Tenant Selection. These laws are often based on the Uniform 

Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (URLTA) or the Model Residential Landlord-Tenant 

Code. Federal laws related to eviction address discriminatory practices, including the Civil 

Rights Act of 1866 and 42 U.S. Code Chapter 45, the Federal Fair Housing Act.  2

When evicting a tenant in the state of Massachusetts, for instance, the landlord gives a 

notice to quit, which provides a grace period of 14 days for non-payment of rent or 30 days to 

vacate the property. While the tenant may attempt to resolve the conflict with the landlord, the 

landlord can take the tenant to court after the grace period. Once the tenant responds to the 3

Summons and Complaint filed by the landlord, an agreement can be reached by both the 

landlord and the tenant; if not, the case goes to trial. If the judge decides in favor of the 

landlord, an “execution” may be issued, during which there are 10 days for the tenant to 

appeal. After that, the landlord can hire a sheriff or constable to provide a 2-day notice before 

removing the tenant and the tenant’s belongings.  As such, the law serves as an equalizer 4

between landlords and tenants. For landlords, eviction is a means to reclaim possession of 

their property when tenants fail to abide by the terms of the lease. For tenants, it provides 

legal protection against wrongful termination of their lease by landlords. In other words, the 

legal process of an eviction is meant to protect both the landlords and the tenants.  

In times of emergencies, however, neither the landlords nor the tenants can be protected 

without active efforts to maximize the function of the law, as was the case during the COVID-19 

era. In particular, legal efforts to address the eviction crisis were met with the utterly 

4Commonwealth of Massachusetts, “Landlord’s Guide to Evictions,” Mass.gov, n.d.,  
https://www.mass.gov/guides/landlords-guide-to-evictions.  

3“Tenants’ Guide to Eviction,” Mass.gov, June 28, 2024,  
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/tenants-guide-to-eviction.  

2“Eviction,” LII / Legal Information Institute, n.d., https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eviction. 

5 



unpredictable nature of the epidemic and ultimately failed, only to leave landlords and tenants 

helpless. Many households were unable to pay rent, and mortgage lenders tightened lending 

standards as the Mortgage Credit Availability Index fell to 3.3% in June 2020, the lowest since 

April 2014.  There were attempts made to protect those affected: the Housing and Urban 5

Development (HUD) rental assistance, numerous state funds, and Emergency Rental Assistance 

Programs that paid for rent, payments, utilities, and certain other expenses related to housing to 

support both the tenants and the landlords.  6

One of the federal government’s efforts included the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and 

Economic Security (CARES) Act that Congress passed in March 2020, which gave 120 days 

eviction moratorium.  Yet, when this act expired in just three months, the Centers for Disease 7

Control and Prevention (CDC) extended the moratorium through July 2021 with the Coronavirus 

Response and Consolidated Appropriations Act. In other words, the CDC had found a way to 

continue maximizing the function of the law to protect households indirectly affected by the 

epidemic. Yet, when the CDC’s order expired, it failed to issue a second moratorium as in 

Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services.  8

As a result, the CARES Act reduced economic welfare losses by 20% without affecting 

the number of fatalities. It significantly benefited low-income households, but provided limited 

8“Supreme Court Strikes down the CDC’s Second Eviction Moratorium,” American Bar Association, September 14, 
2021,  
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2021-september/supreme-court-stri 
kes-down-the-cdc/.  

7 “H.R.748 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Cares Act | Congress.Gov | Library of Congress,” Congress.gov, accessed 
April 29, 2025, https://news.icourban.com/crypto-https-www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/748.  

6“Emergency Rental Assistance Program,” U.S. Department of The Treasury, February 8, 2025, 
https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/coronavirus/assistance-for-state-local-and-tribal-governments/emergency-re 
ntal-assistance-program.  

5“7 Findings on Covid-19’s Impact on Housing,” Habitat for Humanity, accessed December 4, 2024, 
https://www.habitat.org/stories/7-findings-covid-19s-impact-housing. 

6 



gains to middle-income households.  While the CARES Act increased government debt, it 9

provided non-employment income to help households remain afloat, meaning it increased the  

median household’s ability to sustain its typical consumption expenditures. As study results 

illustrate, the CARES Act helped lower-income households’ resilience significantly more than 

their higher-income counterparts, which also enabled a decrease in the discrepancy in resilience 

across racial groups and geographic regions.  10

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

As the figures above reveal, the CARES Act made an evident contribution to mitigating 

poverty, economic instability, and inequality. Some may argue that the CARES Act came at the 

cost of higher government debt and the failure to provide direct payments to the right individuals 

10Trevor and Trevor, “How Much Did the CARES Act Help Households Stay Afloat? - San Francisco Fed,” SF Fed, 
December 18, 2024,  
https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2021/07/how-much-did-cares-act-help-hou 
seholds-stay-afloat/. 

9Becker Friedman Institute for Economics at UChicago, “The Impact of the CARES Act on Economic Welfare | Becker 
Friedman Institute,” Becker Friedman Institute, December 12, 2024,  
https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insight/research-summary/cares-impact-on-welfare/.  

7 



in an effort to focus on providing aid to low-income households. Such downfalls of the act, 

however, do not outweigh the positive effect it had on increasing household resilience, 

approximately from 31 to 46 weeks.   11

History of the Correlation Between Natural Disasters and Evictions  

Since 1960, the housing crisis in the United States has worsened. Rents in the United 

States have risen by 61%, while renters’ incomes have increased by only 5%. Approximately 10 

million low-income households are either homeless or paying unaffordable rent, forcing them to 

compromise on necessities such as food, transportation, and healthcare. Since 2001, worst-case 

housing needs—low-income households that pay more than half of their income on rent or live in 

severely inadequate housing without assistance—have risen by 66%. In 2016, there were 2 

million eviction filings, and by 2018, nearly half of all renter households were paying more than 

30% of their income on rent, with almost one in five paying over 50% (Joint Center for Housing 

Studies, 2020).  12

During and after the pandemic, the situation aggravated. In 2022, a record 22.4 million 

renter households spent more than 30% of their earnings on rent or utilities, putting them at risk 

and leaving limited room to save during times of crisis. Among renter households earning less 

than $30,000 annually, the median residual income dropped to just $310 per month, a 47% 

decline from 2001. While the pandemic-era protections and financial support systems may have 

temporarily reduced eviction filings, these resources largely expired or phased out, contributing 

to a rise in housing instability.  13

13Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, “AMERICA’S RENTAL HOUSING 2024,” AMERICA’S 
RENTAL HOUSING, 2024.  

12Mel Wilson and National Association of Social Workers, National Eviction Crisis in the era of the Coronavirus 
Pandemic, accessed December 4, 2024,  
https://www.socialworkers.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=gmNJzUL1BpM%3D&#38;portalid=0. 

11B. BrandonMaya, “The U.S. CARES Act and Household Resilience,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 7, 2022, 
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2022/beyond-bls/the-us-cares-act-and-household-resilience.htm.  

8 



In times of natural or man-made disasters, including public health crises, FEMA provides 

aid to renters affected by natural or man-made disasters and emergencies. FEMA offers seven 

types of housing assistance and allows up to 18 months of continued rental support, which can 

include government-provided homes such as trailers, temporary housing units, or 

FEMA-constructed housing sites.   1415

A specific example of a disaster that has brought about an eviction crisis is Hurricane 

Michael, a Category 5 hurricane that hit Bay County, Florida, on October 10, 2018. The storm 

severely damaged local housing stock, leaving small-property landlords with few financial 

resources to make repairs. At the same time, some landlords of larger properties used the disaster 

as an opportunity to evict tenants and renovate units to raise rents. In response, displaced renters 

turned to FEMA for support through its 18-month Continued Rental Assistance program, 

government housing, HUD rental assistance, and other aid. FEMA’s long-term support, which 

made use of the Stafford Act that allows agencies to support individuals displaced by disasters 

for up to 18 months, contributed to a measurable decline in evictions two years after the   

disaster.  16

In contrast, the housing crisis of the three-year-long COVID-19 era was met with just one 

year of federal eviction moratorium protection.  Even this difference in the government’s 17

responses to different crises highlights the inconsistency in the federal government’s protocol. In 

17“Covid-19 Pandemic Timeline,” Northwestern Medicine, March 2023,  
https://www.nm.org/healthbeat/medical-advances/new-therapies-and-drug-trials/covid-19-pandemic-timeline#:~:text 
=On%20January%2030%2C%202023%2C%20the,that%20continue%20to%20save%20lives.  

16Tanaya Srini et al., A perfect storm? disasters and evictions, October 13, 2021,  
https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/A_Perfect_Storm_Disasters_and_Evictions.pdf. 

15“FEMA Continued Rental Assistance,” FEMA.gov, January 21, 2025,  
https://www.fema.gov/fact-sheet/fema-continued-rental-assistance.  

14“Assistance for Housing and Other Needs,” FEMA.gov, February 7, 2025,  
https://www.fema.gov/assistance/individual/housing. 

9 



order to better respond to the next emergency crisis, the government must have scalable, 

long-term housing policies that extend beyond short-lived emergencies.   

Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services  

This case was brought to the court by the Alabama Association of Realtors, along with 

other plaintiffs, in opposition to the Department of Health and Human Services, the defendant, 

specifically challenging the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The plaintiff 

argues that the CDC’s national eviction moratorium during the national pandemic exceeds its 

statutory authority. The 42 CFR § 70.2, initially passed in 1944, grants the authority to implement 

interstate regulations, including measures like inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, and 

so on.  But this provision has rarely been invoked and never before to justify an eviction 18

moratorium. The initial eviction moratorium was implemented by the CARES Act, which expired 

in July 2020. It was followed by multiple extensions, including the extension challenged in this 

case.  

To the plaintiffs, this extension is a violation of the Constitution because the agency 

lacked statutory authority and caused irreparable harm to the landlords. They claim that §361(a), 

the Public Health Service Act, only permits ‘direct’ public health measures to which the CDC’s 

eviction moratorium is deemed indirectly related to interstate infection. The defendant claims 

that §361(a) grants broad authority to the agency, the CDC, and is deemed a “necessary” measure 

to prevent the spread of disease. Thus, using §70.2, the CDC argues that it is “necessary to 

prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases” between states and 

foreign countries. It is a legitimate public health measure in the public interest and funded by 

1817“42 CFR § 70.2 - Measures in the Event of Inadequate Local Control.,” LII / Legal Information Institute, n.d., 
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/70.2#:~:text=CFR-,%C2%A7%2070.2%20Measures%20in%20the%20event 
%20of%20inadequate%20local%20control,to%20be%20sources%20of%20infection. 

10 



Congress’s $50 billion in emergency rental assistance, which the government determined to be 

parallel to the approximate damage, mitigating financial burdens on landlords. The legal question 

of this case is whether the CDC had the statutory authority under 42 CFR §70.2 and §361(a) to 

impose a nationwide eviction moratorium.  

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, 

holding that the CDC lacked the authority to impose the moratorium, yet stayed its decision 

pending appeal. The stay was upheld, allowing the moratorium to continue, which the Supreme 

Court ultimately vacated temporarily. This case resulted in a 5-4 decision; the Court ruled that 

the moratorium exceeded its statutory authority.  

The Supreme Court concluded that the CDC overstepped, as § 361(a) does not explicitly 

grant the agency the power to impose such broad measures without fault to Congress, as they are 

expected to speak clearly and precisely when authorizing power to agencies. The decision draws 

from precedents such as Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2014) and FDA v. Brown & 

Williamson Tobacco Corp. (2000), which hold that when agencies claim vast economic and 

political power, Congress must provide clear and explicit authorization. Due to the extent of the 

economic involvement of the moratorium, the Court determined that the CDC’s interpretation 

was beyond its statutory authority. Additionally, the Court summoned the precedent, Lindsey v. 

Normet (1972) to support this decision with the interference of state-level landlord-tenant laws, 

traditionally regulated by states, and thereby reiterated the necessity of clear and specific 

language when altering the power balance between federal and state authorities.  19

The ruling of this case sheds light on the tension between individual rights and public 

19The Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Service (Supreme Court of the United 
States August 26, 2021). 

11 



health needs that limits the government’s flexibility in responding to such emergencies. It 

exposes the lack of legislative preparation to grant statutory authority to protect public welfare 

during a national crisis. In this case, the CDC had no choice but to rely on 42 CFR §70.2 due to 

the absence of clearer congressional action. While it cannot be disputed that agencies must 

adhere to statutory limits, the Supreme Court’s decision reflects the need for Congress to act 

more decisively in authorizing emergency measures.  

Finally, the case reflects the ethical question of balancing economic interests and public 

health. Although legally sound, the decision arguably prioritized property rights over human 

welfare, as the moratorium protected millions of vulnerable tenants from eviction, preventing 

widespread homelessness and reducing COVID-19 transmission risks. Thus, the ruling reaffirms 

the importance of statutory limits, but also highlights the challenges of relying on slow-moving 

legislative bodies and legal disputes during a crisis. The case underscores the need for more 

explicit public health statutes to empower agencies like the CDC to act decisively in future 

emergencies without overstepping their legal boundaries.  

Further, the Supreme Court’s ruling highlights the relationship between individual 

property rights and the government’s responsibility to protect public health. Eviction is both 

directly and indirectly related to health, as people facing eviction threats are more likely to suffer 

physical illness, high blood pressure, despair, and anxiety. Eviction often results in housing 

instability, relocation to subpar housing, crowding, and homelessness, all of which are tied to 

health threats to both adults and children.  Further, homelessness has a direct association with 20

the spread of disease, as known from HIV, tuberculosis, hepatitis C, and COVID-19, as 

20Abdullahi Tunde Aborode, “Threats of Evictions in the USA: A Public Health Concern,” Annals of Medicine and 
Surgery 82 (September 15, 2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2022.104681. 

12 



homelessness contributes substantially to the population burden of disease.  The agencies may 21

be discouraged from implementing necessary measures, and legal disputes like this inhibit the 

focus on people’s lives and prevent the ongoing spread of disease. Justice Breyer’s dissent has 

also presented how there was a downward trend in COVID-19 cases, and the predictions were 

‘tragically untrue,’ and so the court too failed to take into consideration the vicious and changing 

nature of a pandemic. This decision constrained the future government’s authority to implement 

vital emergency measures and undermined agency authority, leaving public health at significant 

risk. This sets the precedent for the United States government, which leaves concerns for future 

pandemic responses and creates a potential chilling effect.  

Most importantly, however, the case carries profound implications regarding the 

government’s inability to respond to urgent needs swiftly, flexibly, and effectively during times 

of crisis. What this case ultimately reveals is not the vagueness of § 361(a), but the inflexible 

scope of the law that is particularly ill-suited to combat the broad and unpredictable nature of a 

health crisis. While the statute limits the CDC’s authority to a set of interventions, such clarity 

becomes an obstacle in emergencies that demand fast and unconventional actions, such as 

halting evictions to prevent mass transmission. Hence, the case demonstrates how legal 

precision, when outdated, can undermine adequate governance during imminent crises. 

Statewide Moratorium Case Studies  

Despite the lack of nationwide protection, some states did not remove eviction 

moratoriums after July 2021. Minnesota, for example, fully ended the eviction moratorium on 

June 1, 2022, and turned to a gradual transition method. Even after June 1, Brooklyn Center, 

21Emily Mosites, Laura Hughes, and Jay C Butler, “Homelessness and Infectious Diseases: Understanding the Gaps 
and Defining a Public Health Approach: Introduction,” The Journal of Infectious Diseases 226, no. Supplement_3 
(October 7, 2022): S301–3, https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiac352.  

13 



Minneapolis, and St. Louis Park legislated their own notice requirements.  Minnesota’s 22

statewide coalition, The Homes for All Coalition, was instrumental in advocating for the unique 

“off-ramp” moratorium: a solution that provided a more comprehensive and more precise set of 

rules to protect both the landlords and the tenants of Minnesota. As stated on July 14, 2021, 

landlords could file evictions for material lease violations but not for non-payment of rent. As 

of August 13, 2021, landlords could terminate leases and not renew leases of tenants behind on 

rent, and who are ineligible for the COVID-19 ERA. From September 12, 2021, landlords could 

file for evictions for tenants who are behind on rent but are ineligible for COVID-19 Emergency 

Rental Assistance, for which a landlord must provide a written notice to the tenant 15 days prior 

based on nonpayment of rent.  Most off-ramp protections ended on October 12, 2021, unless 23

eligible for emergency rental assistance. The off-ramp protection is unique as it avoids the 

binary, all-or-nothing approach, allowing tenants to stay housed with access to aid, while also 

allowing landlords to recover from the losses and work with the tenants to provide notice and 

allow time. It was a balanced policy approach that attempted to protect both tenants and the 

landlord, working off of each other. Similarly, New Jersey continued their eviction moratorium 

until December 31, 2021, specifically through programs that made all people eligible if they 

make less than 120% of the area median income in the county.  New Mexico continued until 24

October 3, 2021, and New York eviction protection ended on January 15, 2022.  25

There are unique cases like California and Seattle that had advanced programs that 

25LawDistrict Team, “Eviction Moratoriums by State,” LawDistrict, December 12, 2024, 
https://www.lawdistrict.com/articles/eviction-moratoriums-by-state.  

24Ericka Conant, “New Jersey Eviction Moratorium to End in 2022 as Covid-19 Cases Surge,” WHYY, December 31, 
2021,  
https://whyy.org/articles/thousands-of-households-set-to-lose-protections-as-n-j-eviction-moratorium-ends-jan-1/.  

23“Minnesota’s Eviction Moratorium off-Ramp,” National Low Income Housing Coalition, August 30, 2021, 
https://nlihc.org/resource/minnesotas-eviction-moratorium-ramp. 

2221HOME Line, “Eviction Moratorium Phaseout Information — HOME Line,” June 1, 2022, 
https://homelinemn.org/phaseout/. 

14 



brought about more positive results compared to other regions. California ended its eviction 

moratorium on March 31, 2023. California provided nearly three years of protection, which, like 

New Jersey, included providing monetary aid to tenants who earn less than 80% of the area's 

median income. AB 832, the COVID-19 Rental Housing Recovery Act, signed by Governor 

Newsom, enacted a statewide eviction moratorium that expired on September 30, 2021. 

Nonetheless, it provided additional money to reimburse 100% of the unpaid rent for landlords. 

Also, the Housing Is Key program allowed landlords and tenants to apply for assistance. It was a  

unique program that “assisted over 371,000 households with more than $4.7 billion in rent and 

utility assistance during the COVID-19 pandemic.”   Through the AB-2179 extension, tenants 26

who had submitted rental assistance applications, Housing is Key, were temporarily protected 

until June 30, 2022. The application closed on April 1, 2022, and the tenants were not evicted 

due to non-payment of rent while their application was pending. California also had clear rules 

and dates for rent payments to protect tenants and landlords. For rent due from March 1, 2020, 

to August 31, 2020, landlords could not evict tenants for non-payment with the provision of the 

Declaration of COVID-19-Related Financial Distress. For ones that were due from September 

2020 to September 2021, tenants were not evicted if they provided the declaration and paid at 

least 25% of their rent during that period. Lastly, starting in October 2021, tenants were 

expected to pay full rent if they did not apply for rental assistance, although local emergency 

ordinances varied. As a result, California’s program has had the largest unified emergency rental 

assistance program in the nation, which covered about 64% of the state’s population, and the 

remaining residents were covered by the local emergency rental assistance programs.  Lourdes 27

27 Covid-19 California Eviction Moratoriums (Bans) and Tenant Protections,” www.nolo.com, September 6, 2022, 
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/coronavirus-covid-19-california-eviction-bans-and-tenant-protections.htm l.  
 

26State of California, “Housing Is Key,” Housing Is Key, accessed December 4, 2024, https://housing.ca.gov/. 

15 



Castro Ramirez, Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency Secretary, has stated that 

California worked “in partnership with a local network of 144 culturally competent 

community-based organizations engaging landlords, legal aid groups, local cities and counties 

and our federal partners at US Treasury, we collectively helped over one million people in 

California stay safely and stably housed”  Hence, California outperformed other states by 28

implementing a long-term, well-funded, and clearly phased eviction protection plan, especially 

with its “Housing Is Key” program covering over 64% of the population, with extensive 

community outreach and administrative cooperation and coordination.  

Seattle’s eviction moratorium continued until January 15, 2022, through Executive Order 

2021-07 by Mayor Jenny A. Durkan. This order not only extends the moratorium but also 

modifies additional COVID-related relief measures regarding utility assistance. Mayor Durkan 

has stated that as the first major city impacted by the COVID-19 outbreak, Seattle was able to 

maintain “the lowest cases, hospitalizations, and deaths of every major city…by establishing and 

continuing one of the first in the nation moratoriums on evictions to keep families safe.”  29

Furthermore, the unexpected rise of the delta variant of this moratorium extension ensures “every 

level of government can provide rental assistance and housing support to tenants and landlords, 

which is critical to stabilizing the community as we reopen and recover.” Beyond that, Seattle 

29Seattle Human Services, “Mayor Durkan Announces January 15, 2022 Extension of Eviction Moratorium and 
Continuation of Additional COVID-Related Protections - Bottom Line,” Bottom Line, December 8, 2022, 
https://bottomline.seattle.gov/2021/09/21/mayor-durkan-announces-january-15-2022-extension-of-eviction-moratori 
um-and-continuation-of-additional-covid-related-protections/.  

28State of California, “‘this Program Was Truly a Blessing’: Facts from California’s Nation-Leading $4 Billion State 
Rent Relief Program,” Governor of California, June 17, 2024, 
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/07/01/this-program-was-truly-a-blessing-facts-from-californias-nation-leading-4-billio 
n-state-rent-relief-program/#:~:text=California’s%20program%20is%20the%20largest,assistance%20programs%20c 
overing%20the%20rest. 

16 



requires landlords to provide payment plans and restricts late charges and interest.  Likewise, the 30

Seattle Times has reported that 60,000 Seattle area renters were behind rent, which the city has 

distributed more than $15 million of the first allocation of American Rescue Plan rent relief, 

including 100% of funds for United Way King County and income-restricted affordable housing 

and the rest $6 million for BIPOC communities. The executive order prohibited landlords from 

initiating evictions and encouraged them to offer flexible payment plans, but the tenants were 

also legally obligated to pay rent during this period. There was extensive assistance for small 

businesses and nonprofit organizations. As a result, Ordinance 126075 took effect upon the 

expiration of the moratorium, which provided an additional 6-month period for tenants to claim a 

defense against non-payment eviction due to financial hardship caused by COVID-19 through 

mid-June 2022.   Seattle’s moratorium exemplified a model for urban crisis solution that 31

strengthens tenant protections and rental assistance access.  

 The District of Columbia also implemented a permanent eviction ban, going beyond temporary 

relief, that bars landlords from filing evictions against tenants who owe less than $600. Mel 

Zahnd, a senior staff attorney in the Housing Law Unit, speaks on how records of eviction cases, 

even if the tenants do not end up being evicted, “prevent those people from finding new housing 

in the future.”  A 2020 report from Georgetown University claimed that in 2018, 12% of 32

households called to D.C. Superior Court owed less than $600.  This sets a higher standard for 33

33 Samantha Sinutko, “Gu Report Highlights Predatory DC Eviction Practices,” The Hoya, October 29, 2020, 
https://thehoya.com/news/gu-report-highlights-predatory-dc-eviction-practices-2/. 
 

32Amanda Michelle Gomez, “DC Council Passes Major Housing Bill, a Win for Tenants,” DCist, March 4, 2022, 
https://dcist.com/story/22/03/01/dc-bans-evictions-over-unpaid-rent-under-600/.  

31Kamaria Hightower, “Mayor Durkan Announces January 15, 2022 Extension of Eviction Moratorium and 
Continuation of Additional COVID-Related Protections,” Office of the Mayor, September 21, 2021, 
https://durkan.seattle.gov/2021/09/mayor-durkan-announces-january-15-2022-extension-of-eviction-moratorium-an 
d-continuation-of-additional-covid-related-protections/. 

30“Seattle’s COVID Eviction Moratorium Extended Into January 2022,” The Seattle Times, September 21, 2021, 
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattles-covid-19-eviction-moratoriums-extended-into-january-2 
022/.  

17 



landlord accountability and addresses the lasting harm that the tenants might experience. 

Moreover, this bill has greater impacts than simply banning evictions for modest sums of unpaid 

rent. It requires landlords to hold valid rental registration and licensing to file evictions, notify, 

at least 30 days in advance, a tenant of the plans to file evictions over nonpayment, provide 

photographic evidence of the court-issued proof of notice, and tell prospective tenants about the 

screening process prior to requesting fees or information. It also instructs the D.C. Superior 

Court to dismiss eviction filings if landlords do not follow necessary steps and seal eviction 

records 30 days after a case ends if the landlord loses or three years if the landlord wins.  Thus, 34

D.C.’s approach allows a more transparent and regulated eviction process that takes into 

consideration the tenants’ long-term accessibility of housing.   

The eviction moratorium has expired in New York, yet it took a more layered approach. 

Any renter who has an application for rent relief pending in the state of New York cannot be 

evicted. On January 15th, 2022, eviction protection for New York City residents ended, 

including for those who filed a Hardship Declaration. However, protections still apply to New 

York City residents if their Hardship Declaration is still processing. Housing Justice for All, a 

statewide coalition of organizations representing low-income tenants and homeless New 

Yorkers, announced that while the pandemic caused “over one million households to be out of 

work and behind on rent, [with] over 92,000 New Yorkers are living in shelters or on the streets 

with no relief in sight” , they were able to earn a $2.4 billion rent relief program. Despite these 35

efforts, eviction filings have surged since 2022, after the protection ended.  There are measures  36

365“Evictions Filings in New York Increase,” LawDistrict, July 4, 2023,  
https://www.lawdistrict.com/articles/new-york-eviction-notice-filings-surge-after-protections-end.  

35Cea Weaver, “We Won a Strong Rent Relief Program, but More Must Be Done to Protect Tenants and Homeless New 
Yorkers: Housing Justice for All Responds to State Budget,” Housing Justice for All, May 6, 2021, 
https://housingjusticeforall.org/we-won-a-strong-rent-relief-program-but-more-must-be-done-to-protect-tenants-and 
homeless-new-yorkers-housing-justice-for-all-responds-to-state-budget/.  

34Gomez, “DC Council Passes Major Housing Bill, a Win for Tenants.” 

18 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

such as the Tenant Safe Harbor Act and Emergency Rental Assistance Program, which requires 

tenants to prove that the pandemic caused financial problems, after the moratorium within the 

period from March 2020 to January 2022. These specific programs were also targeted at 

protecting many tenants and further avoiding any malingering. Hence, New York’s eviction 

moratorium was long-term and precise, aiding with rigid standards. Between November 2021 

and April 2022, there was approximately a 40% increase in filings, which is highly concerning 

as 17.6% of renters have rent that is due in the state of New York.”  Therefore, while New York 37

had a notably long-term and carefully structured support system for tenants in genuine need, the 

post-moratorium surge in filings underscores the limits of even well-designed protections. This 

applies to other states as well. Even the most well-designed protections are state-wide, and with 

the exception of certain states, the national eviction surge reveals the limited support and 

non-ideal outcomes.  

Evaluating Challenges: Consequences of a Disjointed Eviction Response 

The most apparent challenge is the strong divide between the state and federal 

37 “Eviction Tracking System,” Eviction Lab, accessed December 4, 2024, https://evictionlab.org/eviction-tracking/. 

19 



governments. The renter-landlord relationship is a power held by the state, although federal 

agencies are the operators of eviction moratorium policies. As such, the CDC’s attempt to extend 

the nationwide eviction moratorium failed due to the government’s decision that the CDC 

exceeded its authority, and there was a lack of clarity and specificity in the extended moratorium 

proposed.   

Since the federal eviction moratorium ended in 2021, there has been a great rise in 

eviction filings relative to before the pandemic and when the federal eviction moratorium was 

still effective. The eviction filings have risen incomprehensibly, peaking in March of 2023, 

which reveals the long-term damage and continuation of evictions when protective measures are 

stripped away. Despite the state policies, there were great discrepancies in the state and federal 

policy operations. A few states took extensive measures after the CDC eviction moratorium 

ended. California took one of the most supportive measures, as its moratorium lasted three years 

and cost $4 billion. Minnesota also took a careful approach by using a phase-out method to 

prevent abrupt expiration for people who need support. Seattle also supported the tenants in the 

city until January 2022, with extensive collaboration between countless organizations and a focus 

on specific groups of people and regions. The District of Columbia also implemented thorough 

eviction bans to protect tenants, as did the state of New York, with $2.4 billion in aid.  

Eviction has various adversities that come along with it, as it not only increases 

homelessness in regions, which is strongly associated with hygienic problems, but also leads to a 

decline in financial health and credit scores. According to Yale University researchers, it even 

increases the number of hospital visits. The health concerns begin even before the tenants leave 

20 



their homes.   According to the Boston University School of Public Health, tenants facing 38

eviction are likely to report poor health: high blood pressure, depression, anxiety, and 

psychological distress. This eventually leads to physical weakness, as eviction causes people to 

move into poor-quality housing with overcrowding or simply become homeless, which harms 

both adults' and children's health.  Furthermore, a study by the National Library of Medicine has 39

proven that the expiration of the eviction moratorium has an association with “increased 

COVID-19 incidence and mortality, supporting the public-health rationale for eviction prevention 

to limit COVID-19 cases and deaths.”  A brief from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has 40

concluded that the eviction crisis requires a multipronged policy approach in the long term, such 

as “financial assistance to renters; expanding legal protections 

for tenants; and increasing the scale of federal affordable 

housing and rental aid programs.”  41

At the same time, overall poverty peaked in 2022.  

Notably, the poverty rate had reached a record low of 8.0% in  

2021. After the eviction moratorium expired, it rose sharply to  

12.4%, suggesting a potential correlation between the end of  

eviction protections and the increase in poverty. The poverty  

population, which had declined by 14.5 million between 2019  

41Desmond M Himmelstein G, “Eviction and Health: A Vicious Cycle Exacerbated by a Pandemic,” RWJF, January 20, 
2023,  
https://www.rwjf.org/en/insights/our-research/2021/04/eviction-and-health-a-vicious-cycle-exacerbated-by-a-pande 
mic.html. 

40 Kathryn M Leifheit et al., “Expiring Eviction Moratoriums and Covid-19 Incidence and Mortality,” American 
journal of epidemiology, December 1, 2021, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8634574/.  

39John Kane and Cynthia Gordon, “The Hidden Health Crisis of Eviction.,” SPH The Hidden Health Crisis of Eviction 
Comments, October 5, 2018,  
https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2018/the-hidden-health-crisis-of-eviction/.  

38Winnie van Dijk, “Eviction and Poverty in American Cities,” Tobin Center for Economic Policy, February 2024, 
https://tobin.yale.edu/research/eviction-and-poverty-american-cities#:~:text=Evictions%20increase%20homelessnes 
s%2C%20reduce%20tenants,employment%20outcomes%20following%20an%20eviction. 

21 



and 2021, surged by the same amount in 2022. The expiration of pandemic-era relief measures 

reversed much of the government's progress in supporting vulnerable populations during the 

crisis. Most strikingly, child poverty saw a historic rise in 2022, with 5 million more children 

living in poverty compared to the previous year.  These poverty measures reveal the importance 42

of an eviction moratorium as a tool to protect people susceptible to growing poverty; as such, 

low-income households are the most vulnerable population to poverty and homelessness, who 

need federal protection in times of national emergency.  

Conclusion: Proposed Reforms and Solutions  

This is not to call for a complete abolition of eviction. In fact, the legal process of 

eviction serves to protect both landlords and tenants. However, in times of public health crises, 

alternative legal mechanisms must be in place to adjust the terms of eviction, taking into 

account both contractual obligations and the evolving status quo. When COVID-19 broke out, 

the U.S. government’s response fell short, primarily because it failed to anticipate the 

prolonged nature of the crisis. While such disasters occur unpredictably and with varying 

severity, this shortcoming highlights the need for proactive planning to better support the 

public in the face of future emergencies.  

First and foremost, the federal government, particularly Congress, should collaborate 

with national agencies such as the CDC and FEMA to establish clearer statutory guidelines for 

eviction moratoriums during emergencies. Rather than operating in silos, government entities 

must work together to develop comprehensive and adaptable solutions. While regional flexibility 

42“Tracking the COVID-19 Recession’s Effects on Food, Housing, and Employment Hardships,” Center on Budget and 
Policy Priorities, January 8, 2021,  
https://web.archive.org/web/20210114162754/https:/www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/tracking-the-co 
vid-19-recessions-effects-on-food-housing-and.  

22 



is necessary to address local needs, drastic variations in policies can create inequities, preventing 

some people from accessing the most effective assistance programs. For instance, the lack of 

coordinated federal guidance contributed to the legal susceptibility of the CDC’s moratorium in 

Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services.  

Additionally, expanding funding for similar programs and streamlining application 

processes can help reduce housing instability. The expansion of funds can not only increase the 

financial budget but also grant more entities the authority and ability to provide funding. It 

empowers the right institutions—state housing agencies and government, local governments, and 

trusted community organizations—to administer aid efficiently and equitably, catering to specific 

communities. When more entities are appropriately resourced and authorized to help, they can 

potentially present a viable loss recovery for landlords while also tailoring assistance to reach the 

more vulnerable and marginalized populations that face disproportionately higher risks during 

such crises, as shown in the graphical data below. 

Both figures reveal that minority groups—specifically Latina and Black women (left) and 

low-wage earners (right)—struggled to recover from job losses during the COVID-19 era. Data 

from the Eviction Tracking System by Eviction Lab indicates that the long-term effects of 

23 



eviction-related losses for both tenants and landlords can extend beyond three years, 

underscoring the need for continued support to both parties in order to prevent legal disputes. 

Additionally, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, although the economic 

recovery was stronger and faster than initially projected, it only returned to pre-pandemic levels 

by the end of 2023. Job creation exceeded expectations, and overall economic activity slightly 

surpassed pre-pandemic projections.  43

Last but not least, reformed policies should take into consideration the unpredictable 

nature of emergencies and ensure flexibility. In the case of COVID-19, the federal Public Health 

Emergency (PHE) was declared in March 2020 and officially ended on May 11, 2023.  44

However, the eviction moratorium barely extended beyond 2021. This misalignment between the 

timeline of the crisis and the support policies meant to mitigate its impact reflects a fundamental 

flaw. While eviction moratoriums should not be indefinite or lacking in clear endpoints, there 

must be predefined guidelines enabling both individuals and governments to respond swiftly and 

effectively to emergencies. One solution could be to implement a phased approach: provide 

eviction protection for a minimum of three years, followed by structured local and state 

follow-up. Such an approach would help ensure compliance, protect vulnerable tenants, and 

prevent sudden surges in eviction filings that could destabilize communities and pose public 

health risks.  

In conclusion, natural disasters come and go, leaving scarring aftermaths, one of which 

is a sudden rise in eviction filings. To protect both the landlords and the tenants during such 

times, the government must prepare and implement reformed eviction moratorium policies 

44“End of the Federal COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) Declaration | CDC.” 2024. Archive.cdc.gov. April 5, 
2024. https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/end-of-phe.html.  

43Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 2023. “Tracking the Recovery from the Pandemic Recession.” Center on 
Budget and Policy Priorities. April 13, 2023.  
https://www.cbpp.org/research/economy/tracking-the-recovery-from-the-pandemic-recession. 

24 



through collaborative efforts that address both immediate and long-term needs, ensuring an 

effective and equitable response to future crises. Without a proper reform of the status quo, the 

next national emergency will bring about yet another vicious cycle of a disaster followed by an 

eviction crisis. 

25 


