Trending

Supreme Court strikes down LA landlords’ claim over Covid evictions ban

Lawsuit sought $20M in damages from tenants who didn’t pay rent

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch (Getty)
Listen to this article
00:00
1x

Key Points

AI Generated.

  • The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Los Angeles landlords seeking $20 million in damages from tenants who didn't pay rent during the Covid eviction ban.
  • Landlords argued that the city's eviction moratorium violated their Fifth Amendment rights by "taking" private property without just compensation.
  • Lower federal courts dismissed the suit, and only Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case.

Los Angeles landlords seeking damages over unpaid rents during the pandemic have been shut down at the nation’s highest court. 

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court turned down a property rights claim from Los Angeles landlords seeking $20 million from tenants who didn’t pay their rent while Covid eviction bans were in place, The Los Angeles Times reported. With two conservative justices in dissent, the court said without comment that it would not hear an appeal from the coalition of 13 apartment owners who said they represent “over 4,800 units” in “luxury apartment communities” that are home to “predominantly high-income tenants.” 

The plaintiffs argued that their constitutional rights were violated as the city’s strict eviction moratorium, which lasted from March 2020 to January 2023, was responsible for taking their private property for public use. They cited the Fifth Amendment clause saying “private property [shall not] be taken for public use without just compensation,” which they believe the city did with its eviction moratorium. 

The case, GHP Management Corporation v. City of Los Angeles, kicked off in 2021 and took nearly four years to reach Washington, D.C. 

“The city pressed private property into public service, foisting the cost of its coronavirus response onto housing providers.” the plaintiffs said in the case, according to the Times. “By August 2021, when [they] sued the City seeking just compensation for that physical taking, back rents owed by their unremovable tenants had ballooned to over $20 million.”

Sign Up for the undefined Newsletter

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the landlords’ suit in a 3-0 decision, citing decades of precedent that allowed regulation of property. 

Of the nine Supreme Court justices, only Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch voted to hear the GHP Management case. 

“I would grant review of the question whether a policy barring landlords from evicting tenants for the nonpayment of rent [equates to] 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.”

Chris Malone Méndez

Read more

Politics
New York
The Daily Dirt: Supreme Court rejects last rent law challenges
Eviction Moratoriums Pose Risks for Owners, Renters
Politics
New York
Eviction moratoriums are back
Residential real estate, Bay Area, tenant evictions, moratorium, pandemic protections
Residential
San Francisco
Bay Area tenant evictions spike after pandemic protections end
Recommended For You