The ongoing debate surrounding the constitutionality of eviction moratoriums continues to capture legal attention, with significant implications for both property owners and tenant rights. A recent petition, GHP Management Corp v. City of Los Angeles, California, exemplifies the complexity surrounding these issues, focusing on whether such moratoriums amount to a “physical taking” under the U.S. Constitution’s Takings Clause.
In March 2020, responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, Los Angeles enacted an eviction moratorium that protected tenants financially affected by the pandemic. This policy was in place until early 2023, with some measures extending into 2024. The ordinance included penalties that discouraged landlords from attempting to evict tenants under these protections.
A group of landlords, mainly from high-end properties, filed a lawsuit claiming that the ordinance effectively conscripted their buildings for public housing purposes without compensation, alleging it constituted a physical occupation similar to the precedent set in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid. In that case, the Supreme Court held that allowing union organizers access to property amounted to a physical taking. However, the district court dismissed their case, and this decision was subsequently upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which relied heavily on the Yee v. City of Escondido decision. This 1992 ruling asserted that voluntary landlord-tenant relationships could be regulated by the government through measures like rent control without constituting a physical taking.
GHP’s petition argues that the Ninth Circuit failed to recognize the implications of the Cedar Point ruling and misapplied Yee, contending that the moratorium indeed resulted in a taking by prohibiting landlords from evicting nonpaying tenants. They also allege that this decision creates a circuit split, contrasting with the stances of the Federal Circuit and the Eighth Circuit, which recognized certain eviction moratoria as potential takings.
Conversely, the City of Los Angeles, supported by tenant-rights intervenors, argues that the ordinance merely offered an affirmative defense to evictions rather than an outright ban. They claim that no tenants attempted to use these protections against the landlords and emphasize that the lease agreements were voluntary and did not enforce new tenant acceptance or require physical property occupation. The city insists that there is no meaningful circuit split and that the legal challenges are outdated, especially considering the rollback of these pandemic-era policies and the rejection of similar petitions.
These contrasting perspectives highlight the intricate legal terrain regarding federal jurisdiction and the constitutionality of eviction moratoriums, as courts continue to navigate the balance between property rights and public welfare measures.
For more information, the full discussion can be accessed here.