Sign Up

NCLA Site Search

Amicus Briefs

Darby Development Company, Inc., et al. v. United States

CASE SUMMARY

In this case, dozens of rental property owners assert that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Eviction Moratorium effected either a compensable taking or an illegal exaction under the Fifth Amendment. NCLA argues that a dismissal of owners’ takings claims will encourage the government to take private property worth billions of dollars, for public use.

Although the Supreme Court ultimately held the Eviction Moratorium to be an illegal exercise of executive power, at no point was it merely an action by a few rogue unauthorized agents. To the contrary, the Eviction Moratorium resulted from and continued because of affirmative steps taken by each of the three branches of the government. 

The Executive Branch created the Eviction Moratorium and extended it numerous times through executive orders. The Legislative Branch extended the Eviction Moratorium, and members of the Congressional majority used their position to exert political pressure on the Executive Branch to continue the policy even after the legislatively authorized period had expired. The Judiciary, when called upon to adjudicate the lawfulness of these moratoria, blessed the policies as lawful, denying injunctive relief in part because they thought and assured litigants that there would be future opportunities to seek compensation.

In short, Congress and the Executive Branch worked hand-in-glove to create and extend the Moratorium, and the Judiciary allowed it to continue even after determining its unlawfulness. Therefore, as NCLA argues, the rationale for protecting the public fisc from rogue actors ceased to apply when each branch of the tripartite government knowingly and purposefully contributed to, and legally endorsed, the taking of private property.

In August 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a lower court decision that dismissed this lawsuit, a victory for NCLA.

OUR TEAM

Mark Chenoweth
President and Chief Legal Officer
John J. Vecchione
Senior Litigation Counsel
Greg Dolin
Senior Litigation Counsel

RELEVANT MATERIALS

NCLA FILINGS

Decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

August 7, 2024 | Read More

Brief of New Civil Liberties Alliance as Amicus Curiae In Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants and Reversal

September 13, 2022 | Read More

PRESS RELEASES

In NCLA Amicus Win, Federal Circuit Revives Lawsuit Against CDC’s Illegal Eviction Moratorium

August 7, 2024 | Read More

RELATED CASES
  • Adir International v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Company

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: California

    View Case
  • American Home Furnishings Alliance, et al. v. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 30, 2023

    Agencies: Consumer Product Safety Commission

    View Case
  • American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Walther, Dir., and Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    View Case
  • American Hospital Association, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al.

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 15, 2022

    Agencies: Department of Health and Human Services

    View Case
  • American Securities Association and Citadel Securities LLC v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Administrative Speech Controls

    The Administrative State tries to squelch speech, especially through licensing, speech bans, and speech mandates. Licensing requires one to get the government’s permission prior to speaking. Nothing was more clearly forbidden by the First Amendment than prior restraints on speech, but such controls are now commonplace.

    Unreasonable Searches

    The Fourth Amendment forbids warrantless searches and seizures of information, yet the Administrative State violates this right to privacy through administrative subpoenas and warrants, automated information collection devices, civil investigative demands, and “voluntary” requests for information.

    Conditions on Spending

    Administrative agencies use unconstitutional conditions on spending to regulate the conduct of grantees. Rather than rule through law, the government simply purchases submission.

    Case Active - February 15, 2024

    Agencies: Securities and Exchange Commission

    View Case
  • AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC and FTC v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Federal Trade Commission

    View Case

SHARE THIS CASE

Enter your email address above to be notified whenever we post a new document to this case.