Well, that was quick. Last month, as we reported here, the a Ninth Circuit panel held that the City of Oakland, California, could require property owners to pay thousands of dollars in what is branded "relocation fee" to their tenants as a precondition of the owner moving into their own property. This isn't an "exaction" subject to the nexus and rough proportionality requirements applicable to such demands when they are in land use permits. This was merely a regulation of the landlord-tenant relationship.
Now, our colleagues Dave Breemer and Brian Hodges (the team responsible for Knick v. Township of Scott) have produced this cert petition.
As this is a case in which our firm has an active part, we won't be doing much more here than posting the petition, and the Question Presented. You can read the petition yourself and get the idea of what the issues are.
Here are the Questions Presented:
1. Whether the unconstitutional conditions tests in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), apply to an ordinance that requires rental owners to make a payment to a tenant before the owners may end the tenancy and reoccupy their home.2. Whether “state action” sufficient to justify a Fourth Amendment “seizure” claim exists when a law directs the transfer of property from one private citizen to another.
Follow along here, or on the Court's docket.
Now we wait.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Ballinger v. City of Oakland, No.21-1181 (Feb. 24, 2022)
