Here's the BIO in Harmon v. Kimmel, No. 11-496 (cert. filed Oct. 17, 2011), the case challenging New York City's rent control ordinance as a due process violation and as a taking. Although the respondents waived their right to respond, the Court requested they file an opposition.
We posted the cert petition and the three amicus briefs in support here.
The BIO argues that Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992) forecloses the takings claim (it "removes any basis for petitioners' argument that the [Rent Stablization Law] effects a physical taking of their property"). It also argues that the RSL is "rational," and does not violate due process:
The RSL addresses a pressing local problem. "In contrast to the rest of the country, most New Yorkers do not own the homes in which they live." New York City Rent Guidelines Board, 2011 Housing Supply Report 3 (June 2, 2011) ("Supply Report"), www.housingnyc.com/downloads/research/pdf_reports/11HSR.pdf. Moreover, "New York City’s Housing Market remains tight," with a low vacancy rate, id. at 3, and substantial overcrowding in rental housing. Id. at 4.Petitioners acknowledge that the RSL’s rent controls effectively push rents below market rates (Petition 7–8), thus achieving one of its key objectives. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 26-501(f) (finding a need for legislation "to prevent exactions of unjust, unreasonable and oppressive rents").
BIO at 12-13.
The Federalist Society posted a podcast about the case with Professor Richard Epstein, available here. Here's the Court's docket page for the case.
