Washington – The Supreme Court, with two conservative dissidents on Monday, rejected a property claim by Los Angeles landlords who said they lost millions of dollars in the 19th pandemic due to unpaid rent.
Without comments, the Justice said they would not hear a call from a coalition of apartment owners who said they rented “more than 4,800 units” in “luxury apartment communities” to “mainly high-income tenants.”
They sued the city for $20 million in damages, which the tenants did not pay rent during the 19th pandemic.
They argued that during that time the city’s severe restrictions on evictions had impacted the unconstitutional occupation of its private property.
In the past, courts have repeatedly refused to say that rent control laws are unconstitutional, even if they limit how much rent landlords can charge.
But Los Angeles landlords say their claims differ because the city has effectively utilized its property for at least some time. They cite the provisions of the Fifth Amendment that read “Private Property” [shall not] Being brought to public use without compensation. ”
“In March 2020, the city of Los Angeles adopted one of the country’s most burdensome eviction moratoriums, depriving owners of … excluding non-payment tenants,” they said. “The city imposed private property on public services, adding the cost of its coronavirus response to housing providers.”
“By August 2021, [they] They sued the city for compensation for this physical income, and its bored tenants owed rents have surged by more than $20 million,” they wrote.
A federal judge in Los Angeles and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the landlord’s lawsuit with a 3-0 decision. These judges cited decades of precedents that allow property regulation.
The court has considered the appeal since February, but only Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M.
“I will review whether the issue prohibits landlords from evicting tenants to not repay the rent effect,” Thomas said. “This case meets all our usual standards. Nevertheless, the court denies the certificate, creating confusion on a major issue, and the petitioner has no chance of receiving possible relief.”
The landlord in Los Angeles asked the court to rule “whether the eviction suspension has deprived the owner of the fundamental right to exclude tenants without payments.”
In February, the city attorney’s office urged the court to refuse the appeal.
“As a century of pandemic, its businesses and schools were closed, the City of Los Angeles took temporary measures to protect residential renters from evictions,” they wrote. The measure protected only those who could “prove the financial difficulties associated with 199” and “did not justify any rental debts that affect tenants.”
The city argued that landlords are seeking “complete deviation from precedent” in the real estate regulations.
“If the government occupies property, it has to pay for it,” the city lawyer said. “For more than a century, though, the court has recognized that the government is not just a proper property right because of regulating it.”
The city said the shared emergency and restrictions on evictions ended in January 2023.
In response, the landlord’s lawyer said the ban on evictions is becoming the “new normal.” They cite a Los Angeles County measure, which they say “exclude evictions from nonpaid tenants allegedly affected by recent wildfires.”
