The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review a case brought by Los Angeles landlords challenging the city’s pandemic-era eviction moratorium. This decision effectively upholds lower court rulings that sided with the city, with implications for cities across the country facing similar tenant protection measures.
Read: NYC Rent Board Approves 3% Rent Hike, Rejects Mamdani’s Rent Freeze
The Landlords’ Argument
A luxury apartment management company, along with 13 affiliated owners, argued that the city owed them over $20 million in unpaid rent accumulated between 2020 and 2024 due to the eviction moratorium. The landlords claimed that the moratorium, which prohibited evictions during the pandemic, amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation.
Also read: Dolton’s Purchase of Pope Leo XIV’s Childhood Home Stirs Community Debate
Court’s Rejection of the Claim
Both a federal district judge and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the landlords’ claims. They emphasized that the “takings clause” of the Constitution, which protects property rights, is not triggered when a law modifies the landlord-tenant relationship without outright taking property.
Also read: Trump Admin Chooses Reagan Building for New FBI HQ, Scraps Greenbelt Plan
Supreme Court’s Decision
While Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch signaled interest in hearing the case, the majority of the Court chose not to. This left the 9th Circuit’s ruling intact, which had sided with Los Angeles in its defense of the eviction moratorium.
Also read: NYC Cracks Down on 500 Airbnb Hosts Over Illegal Rentals
Los Angeles Officials’ Defense
The city’s legal team argued that the eviction ban was a necessary public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. They pointed out that such measures were in line with Supreme Court precedents that allow for emergency protections in times of crisis.
Also read: Massachusetts to Shift Broker Fees From Renters to Landlords Under New Budget Law
Broader Implications for Cities
This ruling strengthens the ability of local governments to implement emergency tenant protections without facing immediate financial liability. It sets a significant legal precedent, potentially influencing how cities across the U.S. respond to future public health crises.
Also read: Trump’s ‘Public Land Sale’ Proposal Rejected After Bipartisan Backlash
Key Legal Precedents Affirmed
The decision reaffirms that local ordinances designed to protect tenants during emergencies can stand up to legal challenges. It clarifies the interpretation of the “takings clause,” especially in times of widespread public health or economic crises.
Also read: Elderly Disabled Residents Protest Forced Relocation at Northfield Housing
Future Challenges for Landlords
Although the ruling is a victory for tenants and municipalities, it could signal a long-term shift in the landlord-tenant dynamic, especially as other cities may follow Los Angeles’ example in implementing similar protections without compensation to property owners.
Also read: OHA Sues Over Nebraska’s New Law Requiring Legal Fees for Evictions
Landlords’ Continued Struggles
Even with this legal setback, landlords still face the ongoing financial strain caused by the pandemic-era protections. The ruling does not provide immediate relief, leaving many to reconsider their future strategies in managing rental properties.
