A report from Reason shows how the government and media relied on studies plagued by shoddy statistics to make the case for blocking evictions during the recent COVID-19 pandemic. They point out some deep flaws in two studies that got widespread media attention and that were cited by the federal government to support its policies. These studies claim to show that the moratoriums saved thousands of lives. Reason lays out a pretty good case to show how their results were implausible. Indeed…
“These studies are deeply flawed. Their underlying data are incomplete and inconsistent. Their results are implausible. The size of the effect is wildly disproportionate to other public health interventions. The researchers also claim an absurd amount of certainty in their results despite the large uncertainties in the data they use, and they assert a causal effect based solely on correlation. If the authors were correct, they would have arrived at one of the greatest public health discoveries in history.”
The National Apartment Association is using the proof of flaws to execute a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against the federal government. The suit, NAA et al. v. The United States of America, is open to all rental housing providers who have been damaged by and are operating in a state or locality under the federal eviction moratorium. It argues that the CDC order has curbed several rights under the U.S. Constitution including: The right to access the courts, the freedom to contract with others absent government interference, the right to demand compensation when property is taken by government action and the limits of federal government power. NAA is confident that the CDC will be found to have acted illegally based on court rulings to date, including the most recent decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming that the CDC’s order was unlawful.
