Rent Control

Worth reading, if only for its somewhat odd logic is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in BBLI Edison, LLC v. City of Chicago, No. 25-1713 (July 22, 2026), where the court upheld, against a takings challenge, a city requirement that anyone who acquires a rental property via foreclosure must either enter into new one-year leases with any existing tenant who desires to remain, or pay $10,600 if a tenant chooses to vacate. …
Continue Reading CA7: Takings Claim “has something to it,” But City Requiring Owner Pay Relocation Fee To Tenants Is A “Clunky” Form Of Rent Control, So You Lose

The essence of the infamous three-factor Penn Central test for whether a restriction on the use of private property under the police power “goes too far” and is treated as a de facto exercise of eminent domain is the Court’s admonition that the takings question is resolved by “essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries,” and not, generally speaking, by the application of categorical rules. To quote the unanimous Court (in an opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg), there is no “magic formula” to determine “in every case, whether a given government interference with property is a taking,” because “of the nearly infinite variety of ways in which government actions or regulations can affect property interests.” Thus, there are “few invariable rules in this area.”…
Continue Reading CA9, 2-1: We Have A Magic Formula To Resolve Penn Central’s “Ad Hoc, Factual Inquiry” On 12(b)(6) In Every Case

Here’s the cert petition (filed yesterday) which asks whether a takings challenge to rent control which is justiciable under Article III (plaintiff has suffered a concrete injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged restrictions, and a ruling will redress that injury) may nonetheless be dismissed because the court believes that if the owner would only continue to chase the government via its own administrative procedures, she might get relief (thus relieving the courts of the burden of making a ruling). That’s right, the “prudential ripeness” question that has divided the lower courts. …
Continue Reading New Cert Petition (Ours): Can Courts Choose To Avoid Constitutional Challenges To Rent Control By Making Owners Chase Pointless Denials?

In New York v. Commons West, LLC, No. CV-23-1255 (Mar. 5, 2026), the Appellate Division of New York’s Supreme Court (dun-dun) invalidated a New York statute that forbid property owners from considering a prospective tenant’s source of income when deciding to whom to rent a property. The legislature effectively required owners to “accept Section 8 vouchers and, as a condition of participating in that program, agree to allow search of their properties and records.” Slip op. at 5. The court held this violates the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. …
Continue Reading NY App Div: Requiring Property Owners To Accept Section 8 Tenants Violates Fourth Amendment

2011-05-14_16-31-39_422

Who likes paying a lot for prescription medications? Anyone?

Oregon sure didn’t like it, and it was going to do something about it. In 2018, it adopted a statute the “Prescription Drug Price Transparency Act,” which requires manufacturers to report to the State information about costs, revenues, and prices of certain prescription drugs. The Act…

If your brain goes full mobius strip when trying to figure out the California Court of Appeal’s rationale in Anaheim Mobile Estates, LLC v. State of California, No. G063421 (Aug. 13, 2025), you are not alone. 

Here’s the bottom line in this facial challenge to a California statute that limits mobilehome parks located…

Here’s a recent cert petition which asks the Supreme Court to take up the case of a small property owner in West Hollywood, California, whose case was dismissed when he asked “[h]ow far can a city expand rent control to advance general socioeconomic policies before crossing constitutional property protections?” Pet. at 3. 

Here are the…

Here’s the latest in an issue we’ve been following.

In Fletcher Properties, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, No. A23-0191 (July 30, 2025), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the city barring owners from refusing to rent residential properties to a prospective tenant because the applicant is on public assistance is not a taking. 

What…

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following.

In Englewood Hospital & Medical Center v. State, No A-16-24 (July 16, 2025), the New Jersey Supreme Court rejected physical and regulatory takings claims made by hospitals which are required to treat nonpaying patients even though the Medicare reimbursements available will not cover the …