Supreme Court Won’t Hear Challenge To Rent Stabilization Laws

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court turned down a case brought by a group of New York landlords that sought to challenge rent stabilization laws in the city. And while the scope of the case was centered on New York, California landlords were watching closely—with some even encouraging the justices to take the case.

The suit alleged that the combination of rent regulation and long-term occupancy violated the Constitution’s ban on the taking of private property for public use. Effectively saying that rent control laws afford tenants to stay for years in below-market rate apartments.

Justice Clarence Thomas issued a partial dissent, which said, in part, that the “constitutionality of regimes like New York City’s is an important and pressing question,” but that the landlords had failed to show evidence they’d been prevented “from evicting actual tenants for particular reasons.”

The New York laws in question apply to buildings constructed before 1974 with at least six units, which covers nearly one million apartments.

According to the L.A. Times, the California Apartment Association had urged the justices to hear the New York case, saying “many of its members are located in the local jurisdictions subject to rent control laws, including San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Sacramento, Santa Monica, Berkeley, Pasadena, Alameda and Beverly Hills.”