CDC claims vast powers that it does not have

SINCE the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Americans have argued about the merits of guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which have been described as both too strict and too lax, too rigid and too changeable. Imagine how bitter an already rancorous debate would have been if the CDC had the power to command, as well as recommend, the best methods for reducing virus transmission.

Except according to the CDC, it does have that power. The agency’s defense of its eviction moratorium implies that the CDC has boundless authority to control how Americans behave and interact with each other, as long as it thinks the edicts are “reasonably necessary” to prevent the interstate spread of “any” communicable disease.

As George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin noted in September, when the CDC first ordered landlords to continue housing tenants who fail to pay their rent, this purported power is not confined to diseases as dangerous as COVID-19. Even the threat posed by the seasonal flu or the common cold theoretically could justify invoking it.

Nor is the power asserted by the CDC limited to overriding rental contracts. It would authorize a national mask mandate of the sort that Joe Biden conceded was beyond his powers as president, not to mention nationwide business closures and home confinement of every American who is not engaged in activities the CDC’S director deems essential.

The CDC’S rationale for its eviction moratorium, which applies to renters who claim financial hardship, is that evicted tenants might “become homeless” or move in with other people, thereby increasing the chances of virus transmission. The same rationale could justify an outright ban on changing residences or even broad economic interventions aimed at making sure that all tenants have enough money to cover their rent.

Where does the CDC get these vast powers, which exceed even the president’s? It cites the Public Health Service Act, which authorizes the secretary of Health and Human Services to issue regulations that “in his judgment are necessary” to control “communicable diseases,” and one of those regulations delegates that authority to the CDC’S director.

The statute mentions these examples of disease control measures: “inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination,” and destruction of infected or contaminated “animals or articles.” It then refers to “other measures” deemed “necessary,” which, according to the CDC, encompass pretty much anything.

Four federal judges and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit have concluded that the CDC does not have the power it is claiming. Four of those courts held that “other measures” must be similar in kind to the examples, while one ruled that even Congress does not have the power to impose an eviction moratorium.

As U.S. District Judge J. Philip Calabrese noted in March, the reading favored by the CDC would “implicate serious constitutional concerns” by authorizing “action with few, if any, limits — tantamount to creating a general federal police power.”

Other courts have sided with the CDC. On June 2, for instance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C., Circuit said, “The CDC’S eviction moratorium falls within the plain text” of the Public Health Service Act. Last week, the Supreme Court opted not to decide the issue given that the moratorium is soon set to expire.

The resolution of this split has implications that extend far beyond this particular pandemic. If the CDC cannot be trusted to give Americans sound advice, it surely cannot be trusted to give them orders.