The ongoing debate over eviction moratoriums, prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic, has drawn attention to federal jurisdiction and constitutional interpretations. In GHP Management Corp v. City of Los Angeles, a group of property owners challenged Los Angeles’ eviction ban as a violation of the Constitution’s takings clause. Introduced in March 2020, the ordinance prevented evicting tenants unable to pay rent, with some protections extending into 2024. Landlords faced penalties if they attempted eviction, leading them to claim the measure constituted an unauthorized appropriation of private property.
The crux of their argument relates to the precedent case, Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, where the court determined that granting access to union organizers equated to physical occupation. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the eviction moratorium, referencing Yee v. City of Escondido which allows governmental regulations on property voluntarily leased to tenants.
The landlords appeal to a perceived circuit split, contrasting with the Federal and 8th Circuits that they argue recognize eviction protections as physical takings. However, Los Angeles contends that the eviction law was merely defensive, protecting tenants from eviction, and that the decision aligns with established case law. Furthermore, the city emphasizes the temporal relevance, noting the rollback of pandemic-related policies.
This legal tussle highlights the broader context of federal jurisdiction and the boundaries of governmental regulation in crisis scenarios. The Supreme Court’s response to these competing interpretations will be pivotal in delineating property rights and governmental powers during emergencies. As noted in SCOTUSblog, how the Court approaches this case could set significant precedents for future regulation of landlord-tenant relations under exigent circumstances.