The U.S. Supreme Court has denied the petition for a writ of certiorari in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, No. 10-1125. Property owners asked the Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s sharply divided en banc opinion, which held that the City’s mobile home rent control ordinance did not work a regulatory taking because the fact that the Guggenheims purchased their property subject to a rent-control regime was “fatal” to their investment-backed expectations under Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978).
The petitioners asserted the Ninth Circuit”s conclusion contradicted Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001), the case in which the Supreme Court held the fact that restrictive regulations predated the property owner’s acquision of the property did not forclose his challenging the regulation as a taking. Will the cert denial mean that the lower courts will continue to ignore Palazzolo or distinguish it to the point where it loses its meaning like the Ninth Circuit? While the denial of cert is not precedent, it appears the Supreme Court will for now turn a blind eye.
More on the case on our resource page, including the amicus brief we filed supporting the petitoner.
Here’s the order denying cert, if you are interested.