The panel concluded that: (1) the District was likely to succeed on appeal because the filing moratorium did not implicate the right of access to the courts, (2) the District had demonstrated a risk of irreparable harm to tenants without a stay, (3) the countervailing harm to property owners was not irreparable, and (4) the public interest favored a stay because the filing moratorium was a component of the Council's comprehensive response to a public health emergency.District of Columbia v. Towers , 250 A.3d 1048, 1056 (D.C. 2021).Id. at 1054-56.

In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 to be a pandemic; the Mayor then declared the COVID-19 pandemic to be a public health emergency. See District of Columbia v. Towers, 250 A.3d 1048, 1050-52 (D.C. 2021) (per curiam) (recounting history of the Mayor’s public health emergency declaration). The Council then enacted the COVID-19 Response Emergency Amendment Act of 2020, D.C. Act 23-247, 67 D.C. Reg. 3093 (Mar. 17, 2020) ("COVID-19 Emergency Act").

The legislature has the power (within constitutional limits) to limit, alter, or even completely eliminate unlawful detainer actions. District of Columbia v. Towers , 250 A.3d 1048, 1054 (D.C. 2021) (in context of claim by property owners challenging temporary moratorium on filing complaints seeking judgment of possession during COVID-19 pandemic, court holds that claims—there, claims for a judgment of possession and eviction—that are created by the legislature "can likewise be constricted" by the legislature); Ballard Square Condo.