WashingtonThe Supreme Court rejected a property rights case on Monday from Los Angeles landlords who claim they lost millions of dollars due to unpaid rent during the COVID-19 pandemic, with two conservatives dissenting.
The justices stated without remark that they would not consider an appeal from a group of apartment owners who claimed to rent more than 4,800 units in upscale apartment complexes to primarily wealthy renters.
They filed a lawsuit against the city, requesting $20 million in damages from renters who failed to pay during the COVID-19 outbreak.
They argued that the city’s stringent eviction restrictions at the time effectively deprived them of their private property, which was against the Constitution.
Despite the fact that rent control regulations restrict the amount of money that landlords can collect in rent, the court has previously rejected arguments that they are unconstitutional on multiple occasions.
California
City Attorney. Mike Feuer justified the city’s action, claiming that his staff drafted a legal rule that prevented COVID-19-related homelessness among tenants.
However, the landlords in Los Angeles said that their claim was unique since, at least temporarily, the city had effectively taken over their property. They referred to the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on taking private property for public use without providing fair compensation.
In GHP Management Corporation vs. Los Angeles, the city of Los Angeles informed the court that it had implemented one of the most onerous eviction moratoria in the nation in March 2020, depriving property owners of their ability to dismiss nonpaying tenants. By forcing private property into public service, the city forced housing providers to bear the expense of its coronavirus response.
Back rentals owing by their unremovable renters had risen to more than $20 million by August 2021, when [they] filed a lawsuit against the City to obtain fair recompense for that physical taking, they wrote.
In a 3-0 ruling, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and a federal court in Los Angeles dismissed the landlord’s lawsuit. The decades of precedent that permitted property regulation were noted by the judges.
Only Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch voted to hear the case of GHP Management Corp. vs. City of Los Angeles, despite the court having been considering the appeal since February.
According to Thomas, I would allow examination of the issue of whether a rule prohibiting landlords from evicting rent-nopaying tenants constitutes a physical taking under the Taking Clause. This case satisfies every one of our standard requirements. Nevertheless, the Court rejects certiorari, leaving petitioners without an opportunity to get the remedy to which they most surely deserve and creating uncertainty on a crucial question.
The court was asked to determine whether an eviction moratorium that denies property owners the basic right to dismiss nonpaying tenants constitutes a physical taking by the Los Angeles landlords.
Politics
California’s right of access provision, which was influenced by Cesar Chavez and the farm workers union, is ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court 6-3.
The city attorney’s office recommended the court to reject the appeal in February.
“The city of Los Angeles implemented temporary, emergency measures to protect residential renters against eviction as a once-in-a-century pandemic closed its businesses and schools,” they said. Only individuals who could demonstrate economic hardship connected to COVID-19 were protected by the provision, and any rent debt accumulated by an impacted renter was not excused.
The city contended that the landlords want to drastically alter the rules governing real estate.
According to the city attorneys, a government must make amends if it seizes property. However, this court has acknowledged for over a century that governments do not merely regulate property rights in order to take them.
According to the city, the COVID emergency and the eviction ban ended in January 2023.
The landlords’ attorneys said that eviction prohibitions are starting to become the new standard. Citing a Los Angeles County law, they said it would allow non-paying tenants who were allegedly impacted by the recent wildfires to avoid being evicted.
