Regulations are nowhere near that freeform, and they have extensive public review and commentary. The EPA was in court for years debating whether CO2 could be included under the Clean Air Act because they had to stay in the narrow lanes Congress created.
The CDC case seems to make the opposite point: they took a broad interpretation of the public health act, and it was rejected in the courts as exceeding what Congress had intended:
Right, of course, it was clearly illegal but during the key period the CDC got what it wanted anyway. There were apparently no repercussions for this behavior, is making a decision this latest struck down by the courts are valid justification under federal employment law of the terminating employees?
Clearly illegal? The CDC temporary eviction moratorium went to our conservative Supreme Court and they ruled 5-4 in the CDC's favor. Maybe based on the fact we were dealing with a worldwide pandemic.
No, they ruled against it. There were two moratoriums. The first was authorized by Congress. When that expired the CDC tried to unilaterally extend it and that was struck down:
Realtor associations and rental property managers in Alabama and Georgia again sued to enjoin the CDC’s new (“second”) moratorium. The District Court entered judgment for the landlords, and the Supreme Court affirmed.
The Supreme Court found that Congress could speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise the powers of vast economic and political significance that the CDC exercised in its order, but Congress had not done so. In addition, the CDC order “intruded” in an area that is the particular domain of state law: the landlord-tenant relationship. Absent clear Congressional authority, which was lacking, the CDC order was too broad and was properly struck down.
Sure, they ruled against the second moratorium, not the first. But it was a close ruling, because it's not as clear as you're making it sound. The CDC has very broad powers during a public health emergency.
Not saying I agree with what Trump's CDC tried to do, but it's not clear to me that the law bars them from taking extreme measures during a pandemic. It just has to be continually justified by facts on the ground.
Yeah and ultimately in a very real politik way whatever the Supreme Court says is Constitutional is Constitutional because they are vested with the final say on what the Constitution means at any particular moment.
The CDC has pretty vast powers in a public health emergency and IMO the ability to forcibly quarantine people is a power far beyond the ability to pause evictions and is maybe even a necessary part of the former. (Can't really quarantine someone if their landlord can just throw them out right?)
The CDC case seems to make the opposite point: they took a broad interpretation of the public health act, and it was rejected in the courts as exceeding what Congress had intended:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/05/us/politics/eviction-mora...