The CDC's new evictions ban is different. Is it legal?

A day in our life … 

This week:  No medals for these claims about the Olympics … Fact-checking the Virginia governor's race… Florida's senators land on the meter … FDA full approval for the COVID-19 vaccines A weekly note from the editor-in-chief of    (AP) The CDC is trying again to halt evictions. Is this approach legal? We had an interesting day Tuesday, and I thought I'd let you peek behind the fact-checking curtain a bit to understand some of the nuances of our work. Just after noon on Tuesday, we published a fact-check of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She was urging the Biden White House to extend the federal eviction moratorium set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the pandemic.  Biden's team was saying it didn't have the legal authority to extend the moratorium, and that it needed to be done by Congress. Pelosi tweeted out the opposite: "The CDC has the power to extend the eviction moratorium."  In researching Pelosi's claim, we interviewed several legal experts who agreed with Biden and disagreed with Pelosi. That's because last month, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court signaled, without ruling on the merits of the CDC eviction moratorium, that further action to prevent evictions needed to be taken up by Congress.  Pelosi made it sound as if the CDC's legal authority was a certainty, but it very much wasn't. We rated Pelosi's statement Mostly False. (Definition: The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.) Just about three hours later, I got a push alert on my phone: "President Biden is expected to announce a new eviction moratorium in areas with high levels of the coronavirus, after a previous ban expired." What? Did our legal experts get it wrong? Did we get it wrong? At PolitiFact, we rate claims based upon the evidence that is known at the time. And while that rule provides some comfort, it certainly doesn't make up for the potential awkwardness of how we handled the Pelosi claim. Later that afternoon Biden gave a press conference where he said the CDC would be announcing something soon. Shortly thereafter, we got our hands on the text of the order. The order had the practical effect of extending eviction relief for millions of Americans.  But it also actually confirmed our reporting in the Pelosi check. The CDC was not extending the existing moratorium (which Pelosi said the CDC could do). The CDC was trying something new — an untested approach that targets areas with significant community spread of the coronavirus rather than a universal rule. This isn't to say the approach is right or wrong — that's not our job — or whether it will hold up to legal scrutiny. For more information on that, you should check out this explainer by senior correspondent Louis Jacobson >>> Let's get to some more fact-checks. Share Tweet Forward The Latest from PolitiFact Rick Scott's inflation critique ignores checks, tax credits. Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., said Biden and the Democrats had "done absolutely nothing to help families struggling to keep up with inflation." That ignores the tens of billions of dollars Biden and the Democrats distributed to millions of U.S. households through the American Rescue Plan Act — which passed in March without a single Republican vote in the Senate or House. The law sent stimulus checks of $1,400 to individuals and $2,800 to couples; increased the Child Tax Credit, providing families with children an additional $4,380 on average; and expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit for lower-income workers, netting them on average about $850. Scott's claim rates False. Rubio uses wrong photos in jab at Defense secretary. Florida's other senator, Republican Marco Rubio, suggested that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was defying local law during his Philippines visit by failing to wear a face shield, which is required there. But the photo evidence offered in Rubio's tweet fell short. Two of the photos of Austin wearing a face mask but not a face shield were taken in different countries, Vietnam and Singapore. Austin was recorded and photographed wearing a face shield in the Philippines. Rubio's tweet rates Mostly False. McAuliffe exaggerates Va. school funding. In the Virginia governor's race, Democratic candidate and former Gov. Terry McAuliffe ran a TV ad that said there was "a record investment in education" when he held the top job from 2014 to 2018. In raw dollars, McAuliffe did sign budgets during his last two years that set state records for overall education spending and per-student outlays. But for historical spending comparisons to have meaning, inflation must be considered. When it is, McAuliffe is not the record holder. PolitiFact Virginia rated McAuliffe's claim Mostly False. Our only agenda is to publish the truth so you can be an informed participant in democracy. We need your help   Yes, I support PolitiFact! Make a tax-deductible donation to make this message go away. Reader Question A reader asked us to look into this question: When will the COVID-19 vaccines get full Food and Drug Administration approval? Even though the vaccines are safe and effective — and yes, they were tested in humans — some people cite the lack of full approval as a factor in their decision not to get vaccinated. So my colleague Miriam Valverde made a lot of calls to learn more about the timetable. Here's the outlook for each vaccine approved for emergency use in the U.S.: Pfizer is closest to full approval for its vaccine for people 16 and up. The FDA has accepted its application and has a deadline of January 2022. (The New York Times reported Tuesday that it might happen sooner.) Moderna said in June that it had started a "rolling" submission process with the FDA for approval of its vaccine on people ages 18 and up, and it also plans to request priority review. Under priority review, an FDA decision on approval is expected within six months of receiving a completed application, compared with 10 months for a standard review. Johnson & Johnson has not submitted an application for approval. A spokesperson said the company plans to file a licensing application with the FDA "later in 2021." Read the complete report >>> PolitiFact's Olympics coverage Will you miss watching the Tokyo Olympic Games? (I will, but my sleep schedule won't.) I rounded up five headlines from our coverage that you should read before Sunday's Closing Ceremony. Most of these are about serious things, but the last one might make you chuckle if you like Harry Potter. No evidence that Olympics barred gymnast Simone Biles from using ADHD medication Novak Djokovic did not refer to Simone Biles when he said 'pressure is a privilege' It's not true that the women's U.S. soccer team kneeled during the national anthem at the Olympics That Olympics hot mic video isn't real No, the opening ceremony of the 2012 London Olympics didn't predict the pandemic (That was Lord Voldemort, not a looming figure of viral doom.) Do you smell smoke?  Here's your Pants on Fire fact-check of the week: D.C. police officer Michael Fanone is the same person who was arrested after carrying a Confederate flag through the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. See what else we've rated Pants on Fire this week.  I've enjoyed getting to chat with some of you after last week's email, and I hope this newsletter invites more conversations about our coverage. Send me an email at ksanders@poynter.org.  Thanks for reading! Angie returns next week. Katie Sanders PolitiFact Managing Editor  Send this link to your friends so they can sign up for this email! Copyright © 2021 PolitiFact, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website, attended one of our events, or communicated with us. Our mailing address is: PolitiFact 801 3rd St S  St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Add us to your address book PolitiFact.com Want to change how you receive these emails? You can *update your preferences or *unsubscribe from this list.  Subscription Information This email was sent to Webmaster220 Bible Study Blog   Special note: Please read the page I added about Politifact *the blog owner has deleted the hyperlink intentionally