The Supreme Court six in the radically conservative majority did it again: They struck down the Biden administration’s eviction moratorium in another unsigned shadow docket decision. This follows the precedent-breaking order from the court Tuesday attempting to direct President Biden’s foreign policy and force him to retain Trump’s cruel Remain in Mexico policy.

In this case, the six in the majority deigned to write eight pages of rationalization; generally the shadow docket orders are no more than a few lines. That gave them eight pages in which to make some basic, factual errors. That’s one of the problems with these kinds of rulings, emergency orders that are issued without the usual process of hearings, and arguments and debate among the justices. The majority writer—and we don’t know who that is—tries to paper over that: “The case has been thoroughly briefed before us—twice,” the majority says. Which is simply not true. What they’ve seen are two emergency motions from landlords’ groups. They’ve heard no oral argument, and they’ve seen no briefs from affected parties.

In the dissent by the three liberal justices, Justice Stephen Breyer noted that: “These questions call for considered decision-making, informed by full briefing and argument,” he wrote. “Their answers impact the health of millions. We should not set aside the C.D.C.’s eviction moratorium in this summary proceeding.”

Campaign Action

The majority also writes that because there has been “three additional months to distribute rental-assistance funds to help ease the transition away from the moratorium,” the need to extend the moratorium again “to ensure the orderly administration of those programs has since diminished.” That’s blatantly not reality, as news this week demonstrated—the Treasury Department’s report showed that billions in rental relief has not been disbursed, that there is no “orderly administration” of the programs.

They barely acknowledge the ongoing pandemic and dismiss the surge of cases arising from the delta variant, writing that while it is “indisputable that the public has a strong interest in combating the spread of the COVID–19 Delta variant … our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends.”

The law actually allows the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to act far more coercively, as Breyer’s dissent notes. “[I]t is undisputed that the statute permits the CDC to adopt significant measures such as quarantines, which arguably impose greater restrictions on individuals’ rights and state police powers than do limits on evictions.” That’s a point that would have been made in oral arguments and in briefs had the court considered the case through the regular docket. “[T]he public interest is not favored by the spread of disease or a court’s second-guessing of the CDC’s judgment,” Breyer writes.

But that’s expressly what the six extremists on the court are doing—not just second-guessing the CDC, but the entire Biden administration. They’re doing it from the shadows with these “emergency” rulings that are blatantly partisan. It’s where the individual justices who have shown some interest in their regular proceedings in keeping up the appearance of moderation—John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh—can hide behind the radicals and join in these unsigned orders.

Meanwhile, 83-year-old Stephen Breyer is still apparently operating under the supposition that he has some control over his eventual death. He told The New York Times' Adam Liptak, “There are many things that go into a retirement decision.”

“He said, ‘I don’t want somebody appointed who will just reverse everything I’ve done for the last 25 years,'” Justice Breyer said during a wide-ranging interview on Thursday. “That will inevitably be in the psychology” of his decision, he said.

“I don’t think I’m going to stay there till I die—hope not,” he said.

Not to be morbid, but he’s 83. The Social Security actuary gives him another six years (that’s based on the most recent year available, 2017—COVID-19 will have changed those values). He very likely won’t be able to make that ultimate decision, as the example of Antonin Scalia demonstrates.

Breyer also justified his opposition to court expansion by saying that the justices, once there, operate in good faith and used this example: “‘Didn’t one of the most conservative—quote—members join with the others in the gay rights case?’ he asked in the interview, referring to Justice Neil M. Gorsuch’s majority opinion last year ruling that a landmark civil rights law protects gay and transgender workers from workplace discrimination.” The big problem, he says, with court expansion is that it would erode public trust by turning it into a political institution and threatening the rule of law.

“Why do we care about the rule of law?” Breyer added. “Because the law is one weapon—not the only weapon—but one weapon against tyranny, autocracy, irrationality.” He gave this interview after the court’s blatantly unconstitutional order on immigration Tuesday, where the court assumed the authority to direct executive decision-making in foreign policy, and just hours before this eviction moratorium order.

What the court he is sitting on is doing is abetting the tyranny, autocracy, and irrationality in the far-right’s partisan politics. They just ordered that hundreds of thousands of people in the most pandemic-affected parts of the country—because that’s where the renewed eviction moratorium was applied—can be cast into the streets. Yes, Breyer is opposed to that happening, but he’s willing to let his dissent be his action. He’s not willing to see the court’s partisan majority be thwarted or to step aside to let in someone who will better represent the people he says he wants to protect in his dissent.

The radical Roberts’ Six on this court is as activist as it gets, and clearly sees itself as supreme over the other two co-equal branches. It is attempting to conduct foreign policy. It is attempting to direct the actions of federal agencies. It’s trying to set Congress’ agenda, an agenda it will definitely overturn if it doesn’t like the outcome; see its rulings on the Voting Rights Act.

If the eviction moratorium is going to be extended, it will have to be by Congress. That means ending the filibuster, because there won’t be 10 Republican senators willing to do that. If the court is going to be reformed, the filibuster has to end. It really isn’t hyperbole to say that saving the Constitution and the republic is hanging on getting rid of that arbitrary Senate tradition.