told the court in GHP Management Corporation vs. Los Angeles<\/a>. \u201cThe city pressed private property into public service, foisting the cost of its coronavirus response onto housing providers.\u201d<\/p>\n\u201cBy 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,\u201d they wrote. <\/p>\n
A federal judge in Los Angeles and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 3-0 decision dismissed the landlords\u2019 suit. Those judges cited the decades of precedent that allowed regulation of property. <\/p>\n
The court had considered the appeal since February, but only Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch voted to hear the case of GHP Management Corp. vs. City of Los Angeles.<\/p>\n
\u201cI would grant review of the question whether a policy barring landlords from evicting tenants for the nonpayment of rent effects a physical taking under the Taking Clause,\u201d Thomas said. \u201cThis 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Los Angeles landlords asked the court to decide \u201cwhether an eviction moratorium depriving property owners of the fundamental right to exclude nonpaying tenants effects a physical taking.\u201d<\/p>\n
In February, the city attorney\u2019s office urged the court to turn down the appeal. <\/p>\n
\u201cAs a once-in-a-century pandemic shuttered its businesses and schools, the city of Los Angeles employed temporary, emergency measures to protect residential renters against eviction,\u201d they wrote. The measure protected only those who could \u201cprove COVID-19 related economic hardship,\u201d and it \u201cdid not excuse any rent debt that an affected tenant accrued.\u201d<\/p>\n
The city argued the landlords are seeking a \u201cradical departure from precedent\u201d in the area of property regulation.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf a government takes property, it must pay for it,\u201d the city attorneys said. \u201cFor more than a century, though, this court has recognized that governments do not appropriate property rights solely by virtue of regulating them.\u201d<\/p>\n
The city said the COVID emergency and the restriction on evictions ended in January 2023.<\/p>\n
In reply, lawyers for the landlords said bans on evictions are becoming the \u201cnew normal.\u201d They cited a Los Angeles County measure they said would \u201cpreclude evictions for non-paying tenants purportedly affected by the recent wildfires.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"WASHINGTON\u00a0\u2014\u00a0With two conservatives in dissent, the Supreme Court on Monday turned down a property-rights claim from Los Angeles…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":27403,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5123],"tags":[7080,1582,276,2451,11397,12293,9704,23861,23860,2961,224,2444,5337,23863,23864,10558,3229,8167,278,23862],"class_list":{"0":"post-27402","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-los-angeles","8":"tag-appeal","9":"tag-ca","10":"tag-california","11":"tag-city","12":"tag-claim","13":"tag-covid-19-pandemic","14":"tag-effect","15":"tag-eviction","16":"tag-l-a-landlord","17":"tag-la","18":"tag-los-angeles","19":"tag-los-angeles-times","20":"tag-losangeles","21":"tag-physical-taking","22":"tag-private-property","23":"tag-property","24":"tag-regulation","25":"tag-rent","26":"tag-supreme-court","27":"tag-tenant"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/114772948097724052","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27402","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27402"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27402\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/27403"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27402"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27402"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27402"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}