DC ERAP Eviction Stay Rule 2025: One Per Case

[Cite: D.C. Official Code § 42-3505.01(r)(1)]

5. This only applies to nonpayment claims

The stay provision is scoped narrowly by its own language: it applies to a proceeding adjudicating a claim for possession based on nonpayment of rent. An eviction case built on a different basis, a lease violation unrelated to rent, unauthorized occupants, or property damage, for instance, doesn't fall within this stay mechanism, regardless of whether the tenant also happens to have a pending ERAP application.

[Cite: D.C. Official Code § 42-3505.01(r)(1)]

6. The second mechanism: a mandatory cancellation, not a discretionary stay

This is the part of the law that's easy to conflate with the stay provision above, but it works on a different trigger, at a different case stage, with a different legal standard. Once a court has already authorized an eviction based solely on nonpayment of rent, and the tenant notifies the housing provider, no later than 48 hours before the scheduled eviction date and time, that they have an approved ERAP application covering the full amount necessary to redeem the tenancy, the housing provider shall cancel the eviction.

[Cite: D.C. Official Code § 42-3505.01(r)(3)]

The statute uses "shall," not "may," here. Unlike the court's discretionary stay earlier in the case, this is a mandatory obligation on the housing provider once the specific conditions, an authorized eviction, a 48-hour notice window, and an approved application covering the full redemption amount, are all met.

[Cite: D.C. Official Code § 42-3505.01(r)(3)]

7. Why "approved" is the operative word at this stage

The earlier court-stay mechanism only requires documentation of a pending application. This later mechanism requires something stronger: an approved application, and specifically one that covers the full amount necessary to redeem the tenancy, not a partial award or an application still awaiting a funding decision. A tenant relying on this provision needs the ERAP determination itself in hand, not just proof that a request was submitted.

[Cite: D.C. Official Code § 42-3505.01(r)(3)]

That distinction matters practically. A tenant whose application is still pending at the point an eviction has already been authorized and scheduled can't invoke this specific cancellation requirement; that tenant would have needed to rely on the earlier discretionary stay, if it hadn't already been used, or otherwise wait for the ERAP decision to actually come through before the scheduled date.

8. The rescheduling rule, and its own minimum

If the housing provider cancels the eviction under this provision and later decides to reschedule it, the statute sets a floor on how soon that can happen: no sooner than 3 weeks from the date the eviction was originally scheduled for.

[Cite: D.C. Official Code § 42-3505.01(r)(3)]

That 3-week minimum gives the tenant a defined runway, whether that's to finalize the ERAP payment process, address any remaining balance, or otherwise resolve the underlying nonpayment issue, rather than facing an eviction rescheduled for the very next available date.

9. Why these two mechanisms shouldn't be confused with each other

It's easy to read this law as one blanket "ERAP protects you from eviction" rule, but the statute actually creates two mechanisms that operate independently, at different points in a case, with different triggers and different legal force. The court's stay is discretionary, requires only a pending application, is capped at one use per case, and applies during active litigation. The cancellation requirement is mandatory, requires an approved application covering the full redemption amount, has no stated cap on how many times it can apply, and is triggered only after a court has already authorized the eviction.

[Cite: D.C. Law 26-20]

A tenant or advocate relying on this law needs to know which mechanism applies to their case's current stage; conflating the two, assuming a pending application alone guarantees a mandatory cancellation once an eviction date is set, for instance, would be a meaningful misreading of what the statute actually requires.

10. What housing providers should do now

The practical starting point is training staff who handle scheduled evictions to recognize the specific trigger for the mandatory cancellation requirement: a tenant notification, at least 48 hours out, of an approved ERAP application covering the full redemption amount. That's a narrower and more specific condition than any mention of ERAP generally, and confirming the application is actually approved, not merely submitted, is part of what determines whether cancellation is legally required.

Building the 3-week rescheduling minimum into whatever calendar or case-management process tracks eviction dates prevents an inadvertent violation if a case is rescheduled too soon after a cancellation under this provision. And since the court's discretionary stay can only be granted once per case, a housing provider whose case already had a stay granted on ERAP grounds shouldn't expect that basis to justify a second one, though the court retains its usual discretion over other aspects of the case.