GHP Management Corp. v. City of Los Angeles
Headline: Court declines to review challenge to Los Angeles eviction moratorium, leaving lower-court ruling intact and denying landlords a chance for a national ruling on eviction bans as property takings.
Holding: The Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, leaving the Ninth Circuit’s decision that the eviction moratorium did not constitute a physical taking in place while a Justice dissented urging review.
- Leaves Ninth Circuit ruling intact, keeping eviction moratorium rule in place.
- Denies landlords a Supreme Court decision on whether eviction bans are property takings.
- Keeps uncertainty as other cities may still pass similar eviction moratoria.
Summary
Background
Thirteen owners of Los Angeles apartment buildings and their shared management company sued the City of Los Angeles after the City enacted a COVID-era eviction moratorium that barred evictions for COVID-related nonpayment of rent. The landlords said the moratorium was a taking of their property because it stopped them from removing nonpaying tenants. A federal appeals court in the Ninth Circuit rejected that view, and the landlords asked the Supreme Court to take the case.
Reasoning
The core question is whether a law that prevents landlords from evicting tenants for unpaid rent amounts to a physical taking of property that requires compensation. Justice Thomas, in a dissent from the Court’s refusal to review the case, explained there is a split among appeals courts: some circuits say such eviction bans are takings, while the Ninth Circuit says they are not. The disagreement springs from how to reconcile older decisions that treated landlord-tenant rules differently with newer ones that protect an owner’s right to exclude others from their land.
Real world impact
Because the Supreme Court declined review, the Ninth Circuit’s approach remains in effect for now in that region, and the legal confusion among circuits remains unresolved. The issue matters to many landlords and tenants because eviction moratoria affect large numbers of housing units. The dissent warned that cities may continue to pass similar emergency eviction rules and that the Court should clarify the law before the next emergency.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, would have granted review, arguing the Ninth Circuit likely erred and that the Court should resolve the split about whether eviction bans infringe the right to exclude property owners from their land.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?