Maybe I am missing something because I am not from the US, but why wasn't it an option to make evictions permanently impossible for precisely the rent that was due during the moratorium? Then people would have had to start paying again once the moratorium ended, and landlords would have to use other forms of debt collection on what was still owed, but without being able to evict anyone.
Also this part struck me as odd:
> The Supreme Court’s ruling creates a particular risk of eviction for families still recovering from the pandemic’s economic fallout.
In my understanding the court didn't say that a moratorium was unconstitutional, they only said that the CDC lacked that authority. So if Congress wanted to have that moratorium, they could have acted, but they didn't.
Regardless of constitutionality or practicality of that approach, to even try it, government would have to pass a law to that effect. The most important part of the entire debacle was that it did not in fact do so, instead it attempted a ridiculous administrative sleight of hand, which was completely illegal.
Also this part struck me as odd:
> The Supreme Court’s ruling creates a particular risk of eviction for families still recovering from the pandemic’s economic fallout.
In my understanding the court didn't say that a moratorium was unconstitutional, they only said that the CDC lacked that authority. So if Congress wanted to have that moratorium, they could have acted, but they didn't.