Supreme Court Decision on COVID Evictions Ban

Introduction to the Case

With two conservatives in dissent, the Supreme Court on Monday turned down a property-rights claim from Los Angeles landlords who say they lost millions from unpaid rent during the COVID-19 pandemic. Without comment, the justices said they would not hear an appeal from a coalition of apartment owners who said they rent “over 4,800 units” in “luxury apartment communities” to “predominantly high-income tenants.”

Background of the Claim

They sued the city seeking $20 million in damages from tenants who did not pay their rent during the COVID-19 pandemic. They contended the city’s strict limits on evictions during that time had the effect of taking their private property in violation of the Constitution. In the past, the court has repeatedly turned down claims that rent control laws are unconstitutional, even though they limit how much landlords can collect in rent.

Landlords’ Argument

But the L.A. landlords said their claim was different because the city had effectively taken use of their property, at least for a time. They cited the 5th Amendment’s clause that says “private property [shall not] be taken for public use without just compensation.” “In March 2020, the city of Los Angeles adopted one of the most onerous eviction moratoria in the country, stripping property owners … of their right to exclude nonpaying tenants,” they told the court in GHP Management Corporation vs. Los Angeles. “The city pressed private property into public service, foisting the cost of its coronavirus response onto housing providers.”

Court Proceedings

A federal judge in Los Angeles and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 3-0 decision dismissed the landlords’ suit. Those judges cited the decades of precedent that allowed regulation of property. The court had considered the appeal since February, but only Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch voted to hear the case of GHP Management Corp. vs. City of Los Angeles. “I would grant review of the question whether a policy barring landlords from evicting tenants for the nonpayment of rent effects a physical taking under the Taking Clause,” Thomas said. “This case meets all of our usual criteria. … The Court nevertheless denies certiorari, leaving in place confusion on a significant issue, and leaving petitioners without a chance to obtain the relief to which they are likely entitled.”

City’s Argument

The Los Angeles landlords asked the court to decide “whether an eviction moratorium depriving property owners of the fundamental right to exclude nonpaying tenants effects a physical taking.” In February, the city attorney’s office urged the court to turn down the appeal. “As a once-in-a-century pandemic shuttered its businesses and schools, the city of Los Angeles employed temporary, emergency measures to protect residential renters against eviction,” they wrote. The measure protected only those who could “prove COVID-19 related economic hardship,” and it “did not excuse any rent debt that an affected tenant accrued.” The city argued the landlords are seeking a “radical departure from precedent” in the area of property regulation.

Conclusion

The decision by the Supreme Court to turn down the claim from Los Angeles landlords over the COVID evictions ban marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate about property rights and government intervention during emergencies. The court’s decision not to hear the appeal leaves in place the lower court’s ruling that the city’s eviction moratorium did not constitute a taking of private property. This outcome is likely to have implications for how governments respond to future crises and the balance between protecting public health and respecting property rights.

FAQs

• Q: What was the basis of the landlords’ claim against the city of Los Angeles?
  A: The landlords claimed that the city’s eviction moratorium during the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a taking of their private property without just compensation, as it prevented them from evicting non-paying tenants.
• Q: How did the Supreme Court respond to the landlords’ appeal?
  A: The Supreme Court turned down the appeal without comment, meaning they decided not to hear the case.
• Q: What was the argument presented by the city of Los Angeles?
  A: The city argued that its eviction moratorium was a temporary emergency measure to protect renters and did not constitute a taking of property, as it was a regulation rather than an appropriation of property rights.
• Q: What are the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision?
  A: The decision supports the precedent that governments can regulate property use during emergencies without necessarily compensating property owners, which may influence future government responses to crises.