Joe Biden to allow eviction moratorium to expire Saturday
The Biden administration announced Thursday it will allow a nationwide ban on evictions to expire Saturday, arguing that its hands are tied after the Supreme Court signaled the moratorium would only be extended until the end of the month. The White House said President Joe Biden would have liked to extend the federal eviction moratorium due to spread of the highly contagious delta variant of the coronavirus. Instead, Biden called on “Congress to extend the eviction moratorium to protect such vulnerable renters and their families without delay.” “Given the recent spread of the delta variant, including among those Americans both most likely to face evictions and lacking vaccinations, President Biden would have strongly supported a decision by the CDC to further extend this eviction moratorium to protect renters at this moment of heightened vulnerability,” the White House said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has made clear that this option is no longer available.” Aides to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Sherrod Brown, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, said the two are working on legislation to extend the moratorium. Democrats will try to pass a bill as soon as possible and are urging Republicans not to block it. In the House, a bill was introduced Thursday to extended the moratorium until the end of the year. But the prospect of a legislative solution remained unclear. The court mustered a bare 5-4 majority last month, to allow the eviction ban to continue through the end of July. One of those in the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, made clear he would block any additional extensions unless there was “clear and specific congressional authorization.” By the end of March, 6.4 million American households were behind on their rent, according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. As of July 5, roughly 3.6 million people in the U.S. said they faced eviction in the next two months, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey. Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in June this would be the last time the moratorium would be extended when she set the deadline for July 31. It was initially put in place to prevent further spread of COVID-19 by people put out on the streets and into shelters. Housing advocates and some lawmakers have called for the moratorium to be extended due to the increase in coronavirus cases and the fact so little rental assistance has been distributed. Congress has allocated nearly $47 billion in assistance that is supposed to go to help tenants pay off months of back rent. But so far, only about $3 billion of the first tranche of $25 billion has been distributed through June by states and localities. Some states like New York have distributed almost nothing, while several have only approved a few million dollars. “The confluence of the surging delta variant with 6.5 million families behind on rent and at risk of eviction when the moratorium expires demands immediate action,” said Diane Yentel, executive director of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. “The public health necessity of extended protections for renters is obvious. If federal court cases made a broad extension impossible, the Biden administration should implement all possible alternatives, including a more limited moratorium on federally backed properties.” Gene Sperling, who is charged with overseeing the implementation of Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus rescue package, said it was key that states and local authorities speed up the rental assistance distribution. “The message is that there are no excuses,” he told The Associated Press. “States and cities across the country have shown these programs can work, that they can get money out the door effectively and efficiently,” he continued. “The fact that some states and cities are showing they can do this efficiently and effectively makes clear that there is no reason that every state and city shouldn’t be accelerating their funds to landlords and tenants, particularly in light of the end of the CDC eviction moratorium.” The trouble getting rental assistance to those who need it has prompted the Biden administration to hold several events in the past month aimed at pressuring states and cities to increase their distribution, coax landlords to participate, and make it easier for tenants to get money directly. Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta also has released an open letter to state courts around the country encouraging them to pursue measures that would keep eviction cases out of the courts. On Wednesday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unveiled a tool that allows tenants to find information about rental assistance in their area. Despite these efforts, some Democratic lawmakers had demanded the administration extend the moratorium. “This pandemic is not behind us, and our federal housing policies should reflect that stark reality. With the United States facing the most severe eviction crisis in its history, our local and state governments still need more time to distribute critical rental assistance to help keep a roof over the heads of our constituents,” Democratic U.S. Reps. Cori Bush of Missouri, Jimmy Gomez of California, and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts said in a joint statement. But landlords, who have opposed the moratorium and challenged it repeatedly in court, were against any extension. They have argued the focus should be on speeding up the distribution of rental assistance. This week, the National Apartment Association and several others this week filed a federal lawsuit asking for $26 billion in damages due to the impact of the moratorium. “Any extension of the eviction moratorium equates to an unfunded government mandate that forces housing providers to deliver a costly service without compensation and saddles renters with insurmountable debt,” association president and CEO Bob Pinnegar said, adding that the current crisis highlights the need for more affordable housing. “Our nation faces an alarming housing affordability disaster on the horizon — it’s past time for the government to enact responsible and sustainable solutions that ultimately prioritize making both
Joe Biden to name judge Merrick Garland as attorney general
President-elect Joe Biden has selected Merrick Garland, a federal appeals court judge who in 2016 was snubbed by Republicans for a seat on the Supreme Court, as his attorney general, two people familiar with the selection process said Wednesday. In picking Garland, Biden is turning to an experienced judge who held senior positions at the Justice Department decades ago, including as a supervisor of the prosecution of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. The pick will force Senate Republicans to contend with the nomination of someone they spurned in 2016 — refusing even to hold hearings when a Supreme Court vacancy arose — but Biden may be banking on Garland’s credentials and reputation for moderation to ensure confirmation. Biden is expected to announce Garland’s appointment on Thursday, along with other senior leaders of the department, including former homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco as deputy attorney general and former Justice Department civil rights chief Vanita Gupta as associate attorney general. He will also name an assistant attorney general for civil rights, Kristen Clarke, the president of Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, an advocacy group. Garland was selected over other finalists including Alabama Sen. Doug Jones and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. The people familiar with the process spoke on condition of anonymity. One said Biden regards Garland as an attorney general who can restore integrity to the Justice Department and as someone who, having served in the Justice Department under presidents of both political parties, will be respected by nonpartisan career staff. If confirmed, Garland would confront immediate challenges, including an ongoing criminal tax investigation into Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, as well as calls from many Democrats to pursue inquiries into Donald Trump after he leaves office. A special counsel investigation into the origins of the Russia probe also remains open, forcing a new attorney general to decide how to handle it and what to make public. Garland would also inherit a Justice Department that has endured a tumultuous four years and would likely need to focus on not only civil rights issues and an overhaul of national policing policies after months of mass protests over the deaths of Black Americans at the hand of law enforcement. It was unclear how Garland’s selection would be received by Black and Latino advocates who had advocated for a Black attorney general or for someone with a background in civil rights causes and criminal justice reform. But the selection of Gupta and Clarke, two women with significant experience in civil rights, appeared designed to blunt those concerns and offered as a signal that progressive causes will be prioritized in the new administration. Garland would also return to a Justice Department radically different than the one he left. The Sept. 11 attacks were years away, the department’s national security division had not yet been created and a proliferation of aggressive cyber and counterintelligence threats from foreign adversaries have made counties like China, Russia, and North Korea top priorities for federal law enforcement. Monaco brings to the department significant national security experience, including in cybersecurity — an especially urgent issue as the U.S. government confronts a devastating hack of federal agencies that officials have linked to Russia. But some of the issues from Garland’s first stint at the department persist. Tensions between police and minorities, an issue that flared following the 1992 beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles, remain an urgent concern particularly following a summer of racial unrest that roiled American cities after the May killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. And the FBI has confronted a surge in violence from anti-government and racially motivated extremists. That is a familiar threat to Garland, who as a senior Justice Department official in 1995 helped manage the federal government’s response to the bombing of a government building in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people. The bomber, Timothy McVeigh, was later executed. Garland has called the work the “most important thing I have done” and was known for keeping a framed photo of Oklahoma City’s Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in his courthouse office in Washington. At the time of the bombing, Garland was 42 and principal associate deputy attorney general, a top lieutenant to Attorney General Janet Reno. He was chosen to go to Oklahoma City, the highest-ranking Justice Department official there, and led the prosecution for a month until a permanent lead prosecutor was named. Garland was selected over other contenders for the job including former Alabama senator Doug Jones, who lost his Senate seat last month, and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. It is rare but not unprecedented for attorneys general to have previously served as judges. It happened in 2007 when President George W. Bush picked Michael Mukasey, a former federal judge in Manhattan, for the job. Eric Holder, President Barack Obama’s first attorney general, had also previously been a Superior Court judge. Garland was put forward by former President Barack Obama for a seat on the Supreme Court in 2016 following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, but Republicans refused to hold hearings in the final year of Obama’s term. The vacancy was later filled by Justice Neil Gorsuch during the Trump administration. Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to let the nomination move forward in the Senate in the final months of Obama’s tenure. He was criticized by Democrats this fall when he took the opposite approach toward confirming President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court pick, Amy Coney Barrett. He said the difference this time around was that the White House and Senate were controlled by the same political parties. One year later, after the firing of FBI Director James Comey, McConnell actually floated Garland’s name as a replacement for that position, though Garland was said to be not interested. Garland has been on the federal appeals court in Washington since 1997. Before that, he had worked in private practice, as well as a federal prosecutor, a senior official in the Justice Department’s criminal division, and as
Senate GOP seeks policing changes, Democrats push for more
Two proposals are on a collision course as Congress seeks to show voters it hears the demonstrators marching in the streets.
Republican attorneys general support citizenship question on census
A Trump administration plan to ask people if they are U.S. citizens during the 2020 census has prompted a legal uproar from Democratic state attorneys general, who argue it could drive down participation and lead to an inaccurate count. Yet not a single Republican attorney general has sued — not even from states with large immigrant populations that stand to lose if a census undercount of immigrants affects the allotment of U.S. House seats and federal funding for states. In fact, many GOP attorneys general had urged Trump’s census team to add a citizenship question. “We always are better off having a more accurate count of citizens versus non-citizens. I see no downside in this,” said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, vice chairman of the Republican Attorneys General Association. The diverging views of top Republican and Democratic state attorneys highlight how even the most basic data collection decisions can quickly split along partisan lines amid the intense debate about immigration policies. Concerns among immigrants have risen as President Donald Trump’s administration has cracked down on so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, increased arrests by federal immigration officers, called the National Guard to the border with Mexico and sought to limit travel to the U.S. from certain predominantly Muslim countries. U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced last month that the 2020 census distributed to every U.S. household will include a citizenship question for the first time since 1950. He said the question was needed in part to help the government enforce the Voting Rights Act, the 1965 law that was intended to protect the political representation of minority groups. He said it will provide a more accurate tally of voting-eligible residents than is currently available from a smaller sampling survey that includes the citizenship question. In a letter explaining his decision, Ross said the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that as many as 630,000 additional households might not respond if a citizenship question is included. Yet he acknowledged the administration did not know what the actual consequences might be because it hasn’t tested the change. The nation’s only dress rehearsal for the 2020 census, currently taking place in Providence, Rhode Island, does not include the citizenship question on the survey forwarded to residents. Nevertheless, Ross determined the benefits of including the question outweigh any concerns. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a Democrat, filed a federal lawsuit immediately after Ross announced the question would be added. The nation’s most populous state also has the highest number of foreign-born residents, most of whom are naturalized U.S. citizens or hold some other legal status. Last week, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman led a coalition of 17 Democratic attorneys general, the District of Columbia, six cities and the bipartisan U.S. Conference of Mayors in filing a second federal lawsuit. They contend the citizenship question will deter participation and illegally inhibit the Constitution’s requirement for an “actual enumeration” of residents. A third lawsuit was filed this past week by a group of seven Maryland and Arizona residents who say adding the question could lead to an undercount that could diminish federal funding and congressional representation for their states. The Constitution requires representation in the U.S. House to be based on a count of the total residents in each state, not just citizens. The census, undertaken every 10 years, also is used to determine how much money to distribute to local communities through various federal programs. “If we don’t count all the people who live in our city — all the residents we have — it could mean that our community doesn’t get our fair share of moneys or aid,” said Steve Adler, mayor of Austin, Texas, and a Democrat who is on the board of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. “It could also mean that we don’t get the representation in government at all levels. The impacts could be huge.” The George Washington University Institute of Public Policy recently analyzed how a hypothetical 1 percent undercount beyond the figures reported in the 2010 census would have affected 2015 federal funding for Medicaid and several other social programs in each state, assuming the undercount occurred only in that state. The largest financial hits would have been to the Republican-led states of Texas, Florida and Ohio, the swing state of Pennsylvania and the traditionally Democratic state of Illinois, the report found. Democratic-led California and New York would not have been affected because their Medicaid reimbursement rates already are at minimum levels. Estimates of those living in the U.S. illegally range from 11 million to a little over 12 million people. Census data is not shared with immigration enforcement authorities. Yet immigrant advocates believe a citizenship question could discourage even some who are lawfully present from responding, partly because of fears the government could track down relatives living in the U.S. illegally. The U.S. has about 44 million residents who were not citizens at birth, comprising 13.5 percent of the total population, according to the most recent Census Bureau information. More than half of all immigrants live in California, Texas, New York or Florida. Last week, a Democratic state senator in Florida formally asked the state’s attorney general, Republican Pam Bondi, to join the New York lawsuit challenging the citizenship question. That’s unlikely because Bondi was among 11 Republican state attorneys general and two governors who signed a March 13 letter urging the Commerce Department to include a citizenship question. Minority Democrats in the Arizona Legislature also urged GOP Attorney General Mark Brnovich to join the lawsuit. But his spokesman said that won’t happen, just as he refused to sign onto the Republican letter urging the question be included. “We have concerns this issue has been overly politicized,” Brnovich spokesman Ryan Anderson said in a statement. The letter from Republican state officials said a census citizenship question could help minority communities by allowing those drawing legislative districts to ensure there are enough voting-eligible citizens in a particular district for minorities to be able to elect a candidate of their choice under
DOJ announces investigation of Jefferson County Jail
The U.S. Justice Department on Wednesday announced an investigation into the treatment of adolescent inmates at the Jefferson County Jail in Birmingham, including if they were targets for physical and sexual assaults while being housed with adult inmates or kept in isolation for extended periods. The Department of Justice said investigators will assess whether juveniles are detained at the jail in conditions that pose a serious risk of harm to their physical and psychological well-being. Federal authorities said they received complaints alleging that juveniles were regularly housed with adult inmates where they were physically abused and propositioned for sex and that juveniles were improperly kept in solitary confinement or lockdown, sometimes for months at a time. “Isolation_particularly the prolonged and restrictive lockdown alleged in Jefferson County_can lead to paranoia, anxiety, depression and suicide, and exacerbate pre-existing psychological harms,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, head of the Civil Rights Division. Jefferson County Chief Deputy Sheriff Randy Christian disputed the accusations. “The only juvenile inmates we house have committed crimes so violent or heinous that the laws of the state of Alabama require they be charged as adults. If they would rob, rape or murder you, I would likely assume they would also lie to try and make it out of adult jail. It isn’t a place for the faint of heart but it is a place they are treated fairly. We certainly have no heartburn over proving that in court should we need to.” Inmates must be at least 16 to be placed in the county jail, Christian said. The Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center in May of 2014 sent a letter urging DOJ to investigate conditions for juvenile detainees at the jail and praised the decision to open an investigation. “They were placed in situations where they were accused of crimes, have not been found guilty, but are housed in situations where they are constantly in fear of their physical safety as well as their sanity,” said Ebony Howard, SPLC senior staff attorney. “When they were offered support by the jail, it was in the form of being placed by themselves in a cell,” Howard said. The SPLC letter requesting an investigation said a 17 year-old had his throat cut by adult inmates at the jail. It also the second time in recent months that an Alabama correctional facility has come under federal scrutiny. The Department of Justice last week announced a settlement agreement with the state over conditions at Alabama’s only prison for women. Federal investigators last year accused the state of subjecting inmates at Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women to an environment of sexual abuse and harassment. State and federal officials agreed to changes to the prison and filed a settlement agreement in federal court. “Our commitment to finding solutions to problems in Alabama’s troubled jails and prisons is ongoing,” U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance for the Northern District of Alabama said in a statement. Vance said, “the best solution is always a collaborative approach that encourages the state and counties to correct conditions that are constitutionally inadequate.” However, she said they will file legal action if necessary. The Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division is conducting the investigation. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
