Supreme Court Rejects Los Angeles Landlord’s Appeal

Washington – On Monday, the Supreme Court opted not to hear an appeal from a coalition of conservative apartment owners in Los Angeles. They had claimed they suffered significant financial losses—citing millions in unpaid rent—during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Without providing any reasoning, the justices declined to review the appeal from landlords managing over 4,800 rental units targeted at high-income tenants. These landlords sought $20 million in damages from the city, arguing that strict eviction restrictions during the pandemic effectively took private property without compensation, violating constitutional rights.

Historically, courts have consistently ruled against claims that the Rent Control Act is unconstitutional, even with its limits on rent collection. However, the landlords contended that their situation was distinct because the city had utilized their properties for public benefit during the pandemic, referencing the Fifth Amendment’s stipulation against taking private property for public use without compensation.

In their argument, they pointed out that in March 2020, Los Angeles implemented a comprehensive eviction moratorium that stripped property owners of their rights to evict non-paying tenants. They stated, “The city shifted the burden of the pandemic’s impact onto housing providers.”

The landlords, seeking redress for what they labeled as an unfair taking of their rights, expressed concern over a future where such policies could become permanent. They asserted that their financial losses due to tenants unable to pay exceeded $20 million.

A federal judge and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed their case in a unanimous ruling, citing established precedents that permit property regulation. The appellate court has been considering appeals since February, but only Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch showed interest in hearing the case.

Thomas noted the importance of examining whether banning evictions for non-payment could constitute a taking, yet he acknowledged that the court would deny the review due to concerns about potential confusion on significant legal issues.

The landlords sought clarification from the court regarding the implications of excluding tenants who are unable to pay rent. Meanwhile, the City Attorney’s Office argued against hearing the appeal, highlighting that the emergency measures during the pandemic were temporary and designed to protect tenants financially affected by Covid-19.

They contended that landlords were trying to challenge long-standing legal principles governing property regulation. The city’s stance emphasized that when property is taken, compensation is required, but that regulations do not equate to a taking of property rights.

The city also noted that the emergency eviction restrictions had concluded in January 2023. In contrast, the landlords’ lawyer expressed concern that these eviction bans could become the “new normal,” referencing ongoing restrictions in Los Angeles County that prevent eviction for tenants reportedly impacted by recent wildfires.