inversecondemnation.com

Eviction Moratorium As A Physical Taking All Teed Up

Here's the latest in a case we've been following. This is GHP Management Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, No. 24-435, the cert petition which asks whether a local ordinance which allowed non-paying tenants to remain in the lessor's property is a physical taking, or merely the regulation of the lessor/lessee relationship under the Yee theory, which posits that once an owner voluntarily rents property to a tenant, the government then allowing that tenant to remain rent free isn't facilitating an unauthorized physical occupation, but rather is merely a regulation of the existing lessor/lessee relationship. 

The petitioner property owner has filed its cert stage Reply, which means that all the briefing is in, and next up is for the Supreme Court to set the conference date. Here's the summary of the issues from the Reply:

Respondents prefer a world where government enjoys absolute immunity from as-applied physical takings claims against regulations affecting owner- tenant relationships, even where such laws preclude eviction for non-payment of rent. The Fifth Amendment stands for no such thing.

Petitioners’ claim reflects a straightforward application of the doctrine of physical takings reaffirmed in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid. Petitioners should not have been turned away at the courthouse doors on the sole basis that they “invited” tenants to lease in the first place, per Yee v. City of Escondido. That distinction motivates the question presented by this petition, a question that was squarely considered by both courts below, as well as other appellate courts from which the Ninth Circuit now splits.

It is time for clarity. Eviction moratoria functionally commandeer private property for the public’s benefit under the guise of merely tinkering with owner-tenant relationships. Such laws will be adopted again to satisfy the purported needs of the day—including just last week in connection with recent wildfires (see infra § II (eviction moratorium adopted in County of Los Angeles applicable to 88 cities)).

The petition should be granted.

The case has generated a lot of amici interest on both sides, so we're going to continue to follow along closely. Stay tuned.

Join Us: "Property Rights and The Roberts Court: 2005-2025" (Feb. 27, 2025, UC Berkeley Law School)

Register now and plan on joining us on Thursday, February 27, 2025 at the U.C. Berkeley Law School for a one-day conference: "Property Rights and the Roberts Court: 2005-2025."

Here's the agenda. Here's a description of the program:

For much of the past century, property rights were relegated to second-class status compared to the rest of the Bill of Rights. However, under the Supreme Court leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, this trend has begun to shift.

In recognition of the 20th anniversary of the Chief Justice’s elevation to the Supreme Court, Pacific Legal Foundation is partnering with Berkeley Law’s Public Law and Policy Program to host a day-long conference exploring the major property rights developments and future of property rights law in the Roberts Court.

We’ll hear from two different panels of renowned legal scholars and accomplished litigators, as well as a keynote lunch discussion between Richard Epstein, director of the Classical Liberal Institute and law professor at NYU School of Law, and John Groen, executive vice president at PLF.

A catered lunch will be provided.

Register here.

Agenda, Property Rights and the Roberts Court 2005-2025 (Cal Berkeley Law School, Thurs. Feb. 27, 2025)

Registration For The 42d ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference Is Underway (Don't Miss Out!)

Get ready to join your colleagues and friends in San Diego for the 42d ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference.

The 41st Conference was in New Orleans. Here's a report of that event, and here are our reports from prior conferences in Austin and Scottsdale.

Here are some of the highlights of the upcoming Conference:

• Property Rights at the Supreme Court: DeVillier and Sheetz and What's Next
• Slow Take: Possession, Rent, Relocation, and Offset
• The Jury's View: How Jurors See Your Case
• From Penn Coal to Penn Central: How to Prove "Too Far"
• Leveraging Expertise in Eminent Domain Litigation: Working with Land Planners, Engineers, and Other Predicate Experts
• Kelo at Twenty: What Changed, What Didn't, and What's on the Horizon
• Viva Las Vegas: How the Nevada Judiciary Upheld Property Rights in 180 Land's Inverse Condemnation Taking
• Ethics: Guiding the Trolley: Perspectives on Professional Ethics in Eminent Domain for Lawyers, Appraisers, and Right of Way Agents
• "I Think I Shall Never See" Just Compensation For a Tree: Strategies to Securing Recovery for Trees, Crops, and Fixtures

And more. Check out the complete agenda here. Registration information here. 

We especially welcome first-time participants, or those returning after an absence. Connect (or reconnect) with your colleagues from across the nation.

Don't miss out: we have had record attendance in recent years, so hold your space now.

Come, join us!

Links From Today's ABA Land Use Session

Here are the cases and other materials we discussed in today's Section of State & Local Government Law Land Use group meeting on takings:

• By The Thinnest Of Margins, SCOTUS Declines Public Use Pretext "Spite Taking" Case
• SCOTUS Declines To Review NYC Rent Control Challenge
• Sheetz pt. I - "Radical Agreement" At SCOTUS: "Your Money Or Your Rights" Isn't OK Just Because A Legislature Does It
• In DeVillier v. Texas, The Winner Takes It All
• Unanimous SCOTUS: "state law cannot be the only source" Of Property Rights, And "traditional property law principles" As Enforced By The Takings Clause Play A Role
• "Final decision" ripeness incentivizes government to be opaque, and avoid saying no.
• Texas takes a more practical (and realistic) approach to takings ripeness: City of Buda v. N.M. Edificios and City of Kemah v. Crow
• New Cert Petition: Does The Obligation To Provide Just Compensation Waive Sovereign Immunity?
• Inverse liability for wildfires?
• New Law Review Article: John Groen, "Takings, Original Meaning, and Applying Property Law Principles to Fix Penn Central," 39 Touro L. Rev. 973 (2024)
• Yee v. Escondido and physical occupation takings lower court split: CA8: Yee v. Escondido Doesn't Save Eviction Moratorium From Takings Review and CA9: No Physical Commandeering In Eviction Moratorium Because Yee Says "You Let The Tenants In, So You Can't Complain About Keeping Them (For Free)"
• Florida Appeals Court: TDRs, Beekeeping, And Camping Are Not Economically-Beneficial Uses, So Downzoning Is A Lucas Taking

PS: If you are not a member of the Land Use group, you really should be. We summed up the reasons why here.

SCOTUS Declines To Review NYC Rent Control Challenge

Here's the latest in a case we've been following. This morning, in this Order, the Supreme Court denied cert in two cases which seemed to have a good chance at a grant, on two pressing issues which have divided lower courts, the physical occupation in tenancies (aka Yee), and the nature of the Penn Central takings test. Only Justice Gorsuch would have granted.

Here are the Questions Presented:

New York’s Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 transforms a temporary rent- regulation system into a permanent expropriation of vast swaths of private real estate, without just compensation, in the name of “affordable housing.” Among other things, the Act prohibits owners—even of small and midsized apartment buildings like Petitioners—from reclaiming rental units for their own personal use, and grants tenants a collective veto right over condo/co-op conversions. As Justice Thomas has observed, the constitutionality of regimes like New York’s is “an important and pressing question” that has divided the courts of appeals and should be addressed in “an appropriate future case.” 74 Pinehurst LLC v. New York, 2024 WL 674658, at *1 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2024) (statement respecting denials of certiorari). Although case-specific vehicle concerns may have dissuaded the Court from granting other recent petitions that sought to challenge the constitutionality of rent-control regimes in general, this case is based on a substantially different record, targeting only a specific set of amendments to New York’s regulatory regime, and thus provides an ideal vehicle for this Court’s review.The questions presented are:

1. Whether New York’s rent-regulation laws, and in particular its new restrictions on owner reclamation and condo/co-op conversions, effect physical takings.

2. Whether this Court should overrule Penn Central or at least clarify the standards for determining when a regulatory taking occurs.

Too bad, we thought this one had a chance.

NJ Supreme Court Grants Review: Is Forcing Hospitals To Operate At A Loss A Taking?

Here's the latest in a case we've been following. The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to review the Appellate Division's decision in Englewood Hospital & Medical Center v. New Jersey. 

That's the case where several hospitals challenged a New Jersey statute which requires hospitals to take all patients regardless of their ability to pay, but does not fully reimburse under Medicaid the hospitals for the costs of treating these patients even where it results in the hospitals losing money.

The Appellate Division held this was not a categorical (Cedar Point/Loretto) or an ad hoc (Penn Central) taking.

The hospitals asserted that the statute required them to suffer a physical invasion, because the statute prohibited hospitals from excluding nonpaying patients. The court rejected the argument, in what reminded us of the Yee rent control and PruneYard commercial benefit approach, where the essential reasoning is that "you let people onto your land and business, so you've waived your right to exclude." 

In contrast to the plaintiffs in Loretto and Nollan, plaintiffs here operate hospitals within the complex and highly regulated health care industry. Unlike the cable installation law in Loretto, N.J.S.A. 26:2H-18.64 does not limit the right to exclude individuals from their premises. Rather, it prohibits hospitals from turning away patients "on the basis of [their] ability to pay" without being subject to civil penalty, and further prohibits billing only those patients who qualify under charity care.

Slip op. at 19.

The court concluded that "the charity care statute's operation does not lead to physical invasion of the hospitals' property by the public because, unlike Cedar Point, the public's presence in a hospital is a natural element of its business, making it more analogous to Pruneyard." Slip op. at 20 ("Charity care restricts how hospitals use their property to provide medical services, not whether they do so. The property will be used as it was intended—to treat patients.").

The Penn Central argument fared no better. The economic impact must be viewed in the context of the hospital as a whole: the court viewed the property at issue as the operation of the entire hospital, not the right to treat each patient in a way that doesn't lose money on that patient: 

Although plaintiffs contend that charity care as a whole has a negative economic impact on their investment interests, there is no evidence that the prohibition on turning away patients because of inability to pay unreasonably impairs the value of the premises.

Slip op. at 20. Yes, the requirement to treat all patients and then provide only a limited reimbursement for those who could not pay has an adverse impact on the hospitals' "profitability," the premises could still be used as a hospital.

But, the hospitals argued, the statute forces us to operate as pretty lousy hospitals! The Appellate Division's response is faintly laughable, along the lines of "yeah, the lack of reimbursement forces hospitals to operate kinda crap hospitals, but they can still operate them as hospitals: "A takings claim cannot be sustained on the sole ground that plaintiffs fail to financially perform on par with industry-wide norms." Slip op. at 23. 

The court really torpedoed the notion that the hospitals have any expectation of operating free of onerous regulations. Ah yes, the old "heavily-regulated industry" trope:

Hospital investors in the highly regulated health care industry should expect that use of their property, in all its forms, is likely to be regulated by the state, and that such government regulation may diminish investment-backed expectations without resulting in an unconstitutional taking.

Slip op. at 24.

Not only did the court require hospital investors to understand the existing regulatory environment ... they also are charged with predicting the future: 

When a hospital seeks a license to operate in our state, it must consider the laws in effect at that time as well as those which may be adopted by our Legislature. Given plaintiffs' choice to do business here, it is reasonable that they should expect such license conditions to affect business profits. In turn, we conclude it is not reasonable for the hospitals to expect an at-cost reimbursement for the medical services the Legislature has required them to provide as a condition of doing business in our state

Slip op. at 25.

Finally, the Appellate Division made the common error when analyzing the "character of the government action" factor, concluding that "courts have repeatedly stated that the character of public health and healthcare regulations typically weighs against the conclusion that a law acts as a taking." Slip op. at 25.

We've said it before but we shall say it again, just as a reminder: the reasons the government does something is not part of the takings analysis, and has not what the "character" factor asks about. Read this article we wrote a while back for the inquiry this Penn Central factor should focus on is whether the government action looks like it is having the same effect as would a straight-up exercise of eminent domain. If it looks like the property owners is being forced to bear more than its proportionate share of a public benefit, then the "character" factor should weigh in favor of a taking.

What does the New Jersey Supreme Court's agreeing to review this case mean, prediction-wise. We're not going to venture a guess there, but it does seem like something is in the cards.

Here's the issue the court will be reviewing:

Does New Jersey’s charity care program -- which requires a hospital to provide services to all patients regardless of their ability to pay, prohibits the hospital from billing those patients, and does not provide at-cost reimbursement to the hospital -- amount to an unconstitutional taking of the hospital’s property?

More on the case here from our NJ colleague Joe Grather, who predicted, "I bet the hospitals are preparing their petition for certification to the New Jersey Supreme Court now."

Stay tuned.

New Article (Comment): "Vacancy Taxes: A Possible Taking?" (U. Chi. L. Rev.)

A new student-authored journal article worth reading, Christine Dong, "Vacancy Taxes: A Possible Taking?," 91 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1725 (2024).

Here's the Abstract:

Vacancy taxes are an increasingly popular solution to the paradoxical problem of high housing demand coupled with high vacancy. Cities across the country facing housing shortages have either implemented or are considering adopting vacancy taxes to encourage property owners to rent or sell their property. Soon after San Francisco adopted a vacancy tax with one of the broadest definitions of vacancy, property owners lobbed a constitutional challenge under the Takings Clause, taking advantage of a moment of doctrinal instability.

This Comment seeks to make sense of how this and similar potential challenges would fare, given an expanding, property-protective takings doctrine, but a high constitutional tolerance for taxes. Using the San Francisco vacancy tax as a concrete example, this Comment evaluates possible arguments that the tax effects a regulatory or physical taking. It contends that even this stringent vacancy tax would not be a taking under either framework, and highlights elements of a different vacancy tax or regulation that may tip the scales of this analysis. It explores original understandings of land use (and nonuse) regulations to argue that fines levied on the nonproductive use of property are a background principle of property law that generally precludes the conclusion that vacancy taxes are takings.

Download the pdf here.

Worth your time to check out.

New Cert Petition: Eviction Moratorium Transferred Possession Easement To Nonpaying Tenants

Here's the latest in a case we've been following, which asks whether a local ordinance which allowed non-paying tenants to remain in the lessor's property is a physical taking, or merely the regulation of the lessor/lessee relationship under the Yee theory, which posits that once an owner voluntarily rents property to a tenant, the government then allowing that tenant to remain rent free isn't facilitating an unauthorized physical occupation, but rather is merely a regulation of the existing lessor/lessee relationship. In short, you let 'em in property owner, so suck it up.

The property owner has now filed this cert petition challenging that rationale.

As we've noted previously, some courts' reliance on Yee in this and similar situations is a misreading of that decision. Besides that, these courts essentially upend the longstanding common law of property governing the owner/tenant relationship, and the contractual nature of that relationship whereby the owner mostly surrenders the right to exclude to a tenant, but only on certain conditions usually related to time (the term of the tenancy), and the tenant paying rent. Contrary to these courts' rationale, the voluntary nature of this relationship is a two-way street. If these conditions, voluntarily agreed to by the tenant, are violated, the tenant's right to exclude ends and the lessor's reverter kicks in. Eviction moratoria and rent control regulations that permit tenants to remain despite violation of these contractual provisions upend the common law.

Here's the Question Presented:

In March 2020, the City of Los Angeles adopted one of the most onerous eviction moratoria in the country, stripping property owners like Petitioners of their right to exclude nonpaying tenants. The City pressed private property into public service, foisting the cost of its coronavirus response onto housing providers to avoid expensive and less expedient—but constitutional—means to help those in need. In doing so, the City in effect imposed and transferred to defaulting tenants an exclusive easement in the private property of others without paying for it. By August 2021, when Petitioners sued the City seeking just compensation for that physical taking, back rents owed by their unremovable tenants had ballooned to over $20 million. The moratorium concluded in 2024.

Relying on a mobile home rent control case from this Court, Yee v. City of Escondido, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Petitioners’ complaint because they “voluntarily opened” their properties to tenants in the first instance and thus could never state a physical takings claim against the City’s law, drastic as it was. The Federal and Eighth Circuits disagree. In Darby Development Co. v. United States and Heights Apartments, LLC v. Walz, both courts held Yee inapposite and validated identical claims because moratoria like the City’s deprive owners of the right to exclude akin to Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid.

The question presented is:

Whether an eviction moratorium depriving property owners of the fundamental right to exclude nonpaying tenants effects a physical taking.

This is a festering issue in the lower courts, as the petition points out.

Stay tuned.

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, GHP Management Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, No. 24-___ (U.S. Oct. 16,...

Hawaii Dirt Lawyers: Don't Miss "Property Rights & Regulatory Takings" CLE At The HSBA Convention (In-Person & Webcast)

Hawaii lawyers (and those barred in the 808), take note: On October 21, 2024, the Hawaii State Bar Association will hold its annual Convention, and as always there's a full lineup of CLE programs so you can meet your MCLE requirements.

Thanks to the Real Property & Financial Services Section, there's a significant dirt law component. First, there's "Property Rights and Regulatory Takings" the program on which we are presenting along with Dwight Merriam and lawprof Shelley Saxer. Here's the official description:

This course will provide a survey of property rights and regulatory takings with an emphasis on recent decisions from the United States Supreme Court. Panelists include distinguished faculty and practitioners that will address impact fees, development rights, taking claims, rent controls, and other current issues.

Following us will be a program on "Land Use Conditions" with Cal Chipchase, Brad Saito, and a lawyer from the State of Hawaii Attorney General's office:

This course will provide a survey of the regulatory systems that govern land use in the State of Hawaii. Panelists will discuss regulatory frameworks at the state and city level together with recent legal developments from the Hawaii Supreme Court

You can attend in-person or remotely. This page has the registration information as well as more details and bios of the speakers.

As Jack Lord used to say: "Be here, Aloha."

Lawprof Somin: "Federal Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Takings Lawsuit Against the CDC's Covid-Era Eviction Moratorium"

Be sure to read the entirety of Lawprof Ilya Somin's recent post on Volokh, "Federal Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Takings Lawsuit Against the CDC's Covid-Era Eviction Moratorium."

There, he analyzes the Federal Circuit's recent 2-1 opinion in Darby Dev. Co., Inc. v. United States, No. 22-1929 (Aug. 7, 2024) (we wrote up the case here: "Deepening A Lower Court Split, Fed Cir (2-1) Reinstates CDC Co-19 Eviction Moratorium Temporary Takings Claim").

Professor Somin does a better job that we did offering his thoughts on the "authorized" issue, concluding:

To me, the decisive factor should be that the Takings Clause nowhere says that compensation is only required for legal government actions or for those specifically authorized by statute. Rather, the Clause imposes a general rule that compensation must be paid whenever the government takes private property for "public use." That, of course, can happen even without proper legislative authorization. I can understand if takings liability is nonetheless denied when rogue low-level officials seize property without any plausible justification. But that isn't what happened here.

He also dives into the question of whether leasing property to a tenant is an "invitation" to occupy the property that pretty much wipes out any claim that the government restricting the ability to recover the property upon expiration or breach of the lease is a physical taking:

To put it a different way, any "invitation" expires at the point where the property owner has a legal right to evict the tenant. At that point, there is no voluntary landlord-tenant relationship anymore; and if the government forces the owner to keep on housing the tenant on his land, we have a mandated physical occupation of property, which counts as a per se taking.

Well worth reading. Check it out.

Deepening A Lower Court Split, Fed Cir (2-1) Reinstates CDC Co-19 Eviction Moratorium Temporary Takings Claim

This one is a must-read.

In Darby Dev. Co., Inc. v. United States, No. 22-1929 (Aug. 7, 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Court of Federal Claims should not have dismissed Darby's complaint for failure to state a physical invasion takings claim.

The short takeaways:

• Takings claims do not require the government action be legally authorized (here, the courts invalidated the government action, after which the plaintiff sued for a taking), only that the government action was "authorized" and thus can be "chargeable to the government."
• Prohibiting evictions is not merely a regulation of the landlord-tenant relationship. Yee v. City of Escondido is distinguishable, and does not categorically exempt all actions that implicate the landlord-tenant relationship from physical takings challenge.

We think the longer story is worth your time. Here it is.

As you may recall, the Center for Disease Control purported to impose a nationwide moratorium on residential evictions during the Co-19 lockdowns. (Sidebar: we don't know about you, but the lockdowns now seem like eons ago -- some distant fever dream, no?) When the Supreme Court got a hold of a challenge to the CDC's authority to do this, the Court concluded, "[i]t strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the CDC the sweeping authority that it asserts."

Now remember, that was one of the cases challenging the CDC moratorium on non-takings grounds, primarily asserting that the CDC's enabling statute did not give it the authority to impose such a sweeping an action (or if it does, the statute is unconstitutional). The Court invalidated the moratorium. Or, more precisely, concluded the challengers in that case stood a pretty good chance of ultimately prevailing on the merits, since this went to the Court on a preliminary injunction. In any event, that was enough, and the CDC stood down.

But as we also noted, Court's opinion contained some tantalizing takings language that we thought then (and continue to think now) predicted a physical takings claim:

Despite the CDC's determination that landlords should bear a significant financial cost of the pandemic, many landlords have modest means. And preventing them from evicting tenants who breach their leases intrudes on one of the most fundamental elements of property ownership - the right to exclude. See Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 435 (1982).

Not surprisingly, some property owners took up the challenge, and several takings claims against the federal government in the Court of Federal Claims followed. Some of the claims were quite ... extraordinary. Others a bit more modest. But here's the general theory most of them employed:

In their operative complaint, they claimed that the Order, by preventing them from evicting non-rent-paying tenants, constituted a physical taking of their rental properties for public use, thus requiring just compensation under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. See J.A. 37 ¶ 31, 38 ¶¶ 36–37 (describing the Order as having deprived Appellants of their “fundamental right to exclude” and having “effected a government-authorized physical invasion, occupation, or appropriation of [their] private property, for the government itself or for third parties” (cleaned up)).

Slip op. at 6-7 (footnote omitted0.

To our surprise [more like "surprised not surprised"], most of those complaints went nowhere, and floundered on familiar shoals, as in the Darby case:

The government moved under Court of Federal Claims Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Appellants’ complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The government made two primary arguments relevant here. First, it argued that a takings claim cannot be premised on government action that was unauthorized; and, in its view, the Supreme Court in Alabama Association of Realtors essentially confirmed that the Order was unauthorized. Second, it argued that, under Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992), the Order could not constitute a physical taking because it merely regulated the landlord-tenant relationship.

The Court of Federal Claims granted the government’s motion and dismissed the complaint. Darby Dev. Co. v. United States, 160 Fed. Cl. 45 (2022).

Apparent Authority and "Chargeable to the Government"

The Federal Circuit first considered the government's argument that only authorized actions result in takings liability. It argued that "authorized" means legal, or done with actual legal authority. The court rejected the claim, holding that "authorized" means "chargeable to the government" Slip op. at 10. So an action that is ultimately ultra vires or illegal can result in takings liability. This reminds us of the common law "apparent authority" vibe:

An action will normally be deemed authorized if it was done by government agents “within the general scope of their duties”—i.e., if it was “a natural consequence of congressionally approved measures” or “pursuant to the good faith implementation of a congressional act.” Del-Rio, 146 F.3d at 1362 (cleaned up); see also Ramirez, 724 F.2d at 152 (“[O]n numerous occasions when the government agent was acting within the ordinary scope of responsibilities conferred on him by Congress, and took private property without express statutory authority or prohibition, the Tucker Act remedy was held to lie.”).

Slip op. at 11 & n.7 (citing Restatement (Third) of Agency § 2.02 cmt. c (Am. Law. Inst. 2006) ("In determining when an agent’s act is attributable to a principal, it is not novel to define the agent’s authority based on its reasonable (even if ultimately mistaken) understanding of the authority that the principal gave it.")).

This portion of the opinion wraps up with this summary:

To summarize: even if an action by a government agent is unlawful, it will likely be deemed authorized for takings claim purposes if it was done within the normal scope of the agent’s duties—for example, if it was done “pursuant to the good faith implementation of a congressional act.” Del- Rio, 146 F.3d at 1362 (cleaned up). If instead the action was outside the normal scope of the government agent’s duties— or, despite being within that scope, it contravened an explicit prohibition or other positively expressed congressional intent—it will likely be deemed unauthorized. See id. at 1363; Ramirez, 724 F.2d at 151. The ultimate inquiry is whether the government agent’s action is “chargeable to the government.” Del-Rio, 146 F.3d at 1362.

Slip op. at 16.

The court concluded that "because the CDC issued the Order within the normal scope of its duties, and because it did not contravene any explicit prohibition or positively expressed congressional intent in so doing (far from it, as just discussed), we concluded that the Order was 'authorized' for takings-claim purposes." Slip op. at 20.

Yee Doesn't Go That Far: Cedar Point is More On-Point

Next, the court considered whether Yee v. Escondido -- a case which has caused all sorts of mischief in the takings field -- could be employed to deem the CDC's restriction on a lessor recovering possession of rented property via eviction merely a regulation on the landlord/tenant relationship, and not the government allowing third-party occupation of property.

The court found Cedar Point more on-point: "Cedar Point's reasoning indicates that the complaint stated a physical-takings claim. And, as explained below, we consider Yee distinguishable." Slip op. at 30.

[A]t a fundamental level, we cannot reconcile how forcing property owners to occasionally let union organizers on their property infringes their right to exclude, while forcing them to house non-rent-paying tenants (by removing their ability to evict) would not.

Slip op. at 31.

The court limited Yee ("the laws at issue in Yee expressly permitted eviction for nonpayment of rent"), and noted that "Yee was fundamentally a rent-control case." Id. The court rejected each of the government's Yee-based arguments. 

First, Yee is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, and did not hold that "government actions implicating the landlord-tenant relationship can never be a physical taking." Slip op. at 31-32. Yes, there's a broad power to regulate, but "we see nothing in Yee (or any other binding precedent we are aware of) that immunizes -- as a categorical matter -- government action implicating the landlord-tenant relationship from being treated as a physical taking." Slip op. at 32.

Second, the court rejected the notion that because the owner invited the tenant to occupy the property by entering into a lease, she thereby abandons a right to recover the property upon breach of that lease. "While we agree that this point distinguishes Cedar Point, we are not persuaded that it compels a different result." Slip op. at 33.

If a previous voluntary invitation (by itself) controlled the analysis, that would essentially mean that all government actions implicating the landlord-tenant relationship are immune from being treated as physical takings. (After all, we can safely assume that just about every landlord-tenant relationship stems from a voluntary “invitation” from the landlord to the tenant.) And yet, as noted above, we see no reason why government actions implicating that relationship must be categorically immune from being treated as a physical taking. At bottom, just because tenants (or other occupiers of property) were at one point “invited” does not mean that their continued, government-compelled occupation cannot, under any circumstances, be treated as a physical taking.

Id.

The court summarized by noting that the CDC's restriction "is hardly a run-of-the-mill law implicating the landlord-tenant relationship. Instead, it is a highly-unusual -- and, so far as the parties have shown, unprecedented -- Order that outright prevent evictions for nonpayment of rent." Slip op. at 34.

The Federal Circuit joins the Eighth in limiting the scope of Yee, while other circuits (see also this) -- and some state courts -- continue to to view Yee as allowing nearly any form of regulation as long as the tenancy originally was permissive. 

One judge dissented (Judge Dyk, in case you were wondering). He focused on the "authorized" argument, and would have concluded that the CDC's actions were not within the "normal scope" of the agency's duties, and was "well-outside" what the CDC is charged with doing. In other words, the more the CDC strayed outside the lines, the less its actions could result in a taking.

This, he asserted, would result in a massive expansion of government liability:

It would effectively make even clearly unauthorized agency action authorized for purposes of takings liability unless that action was contrary to a specific prohibition of the authorizing statute or taken in bad faith. That cannot be correct. The majority’s decision would work a sea change in our takings jurisprudence and impose significant takings liability on agencies for unauthorized acts, directly discouraging adoption of legitimate government programs because of the risk of takings liability in addition to injunctive and declaratory relief. Historically, unauthorized programs were enjoined. Now, in addition there is the specter of takings liability.

Dissent at 3.

The length of Judge Dyk's dissent tells us he was trying to set up en banc review, or even a government cert petition.

So stay tuned.

Darby Dev. Co., Inc. v. United States, No. 22-1929 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2024)

Book Launch Event, Aug 13, 2024: Jim Burling, "Nowhere to Live: The Hidden Story of America's Housing Crisis"

If you are in the California Southland (or plan to be in the next week), please be sure to reserve on your calendar Tuesday, August 13, 2024, to join us in-person for the launch of our colleague Jim Burling's forthcoming book, "Nowhere to Live: The Hidden Story of America's Housing Crisis."

Here's a blurb about the book, which is available for preorder on Amazon:

A century of policy mistakes ruined America’s cities and created an unprecedented housing crisis.   
 
For many families, homelessness is no longer someone else’s problem. It is right around the corner, a real threat in their own immediate future. Our housing crisis is the result of a long history of government policies, court cases, and political manipulation. While these disparate causes make up a tangled web, they have one surprising root: the attack on private property rights. For more than a century, government policies and court decisions have attacked, undermined, and eroded private property rights. Whether it be exclusionary zoning, eminent domain abuse, rent control, or excessive environmental regulations, the cumulative impact of these assaults on private property is that it’s become increasingly difficult—or even impossible—to build adequate housing supplies to meet market demands. We are fast approaching a time when millions of typical Americans will, quite literally, have nowhere to live. 

Nowhere to Live: The Hidden Story of America’s Housing Crisis, takes readers through the history of how we got here. With stories going back to the Civil War, the early twentieth century, and the ill-fated “urban renewal” movement of the 1950s, Nowhere to Live reveals how the government layered mistake upon mistake to create the current crisis. It also provides a way out: not by government fiat, but through the restoration of private property rights.  

The event will take place at the Pacific Club in Newport Beach, California, from 6:00-8:00 p.m., on Tuesday, August 13, 2024. It will feature Pacific Legal Foundation President Steven Anderson, and national zoning expert Nolan Gray, and, of course, Jim. The event will feature an open bar and is free. Register here.

Come, join us and learn and celebrate!

We Heard You, Justice Thomas: NY Property Owners File New Takings Cert Petition Challenging Rent Control

As we noted here ("SCOTUS Denies Review To Remaining Rent Control Takings Petitions: "Important and pressing question" (Just Not In This Case)"), a small silver lining in the Court declining review was the statement of Justice Thomas accompanying the denial, where he noted the issue is an "important question," and set out a rough roadmap to future challenges.

Here's a cert petition which asserts this is the case to take up the issue. Here's the Question Presented:

New York’s Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 transforms a temporary rent- regulation system into a permanent expropriation of vast swaths of private real estate, without just compensation, in the name of “affordable housing.” Among other things, the Act prohibits owners—even of small and midsized apartment buildings like Petitioners—from reclaiming rental units for their own personal use, and grants tenants a collective veto right over condo/co-op conversions. As Justice Thomas has observed, the constitutionality of regimes like New York’s is “an important and pressing question” that has divided the courts of appeals and should be addressed in “an appropriate future case.” 74 Pinehurst LLC v. New York, 2024 WL 674658, at *1 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2024) (statement respecting denials of certiorari). Although case-specific vehicle concerns may have dissuaded the Court from granting other recent petitions that sought to challenge the constitutionality of rent-control regimes in general, this case is based on a substantially different record, targeting only a specific set of amendments to New York’s regulatory regime, and thus provides an ideal vehicle for this Court’s review.

The questions presented are:

1. Whether New York’s rent-regulation laws, and in particular its new restrictions on owner reclamation and condo/co-op conversions, effect physical takings.

2. Whether this Court should overrule Penn Central or at least clarify the standards for determining when a regulatory taking occurs.

Here's the unpublished Second Circuit decision.

Follow along this case here or on the Court's docket here.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari, G-Max Mgmt, Inc. v. State of New York, No. 23-1148 (U.S. Apr. 18, 2024)

Thursday Round Up: Pretextual Takings, Squatting, Unconstitutional Conditions

Here's what we're reading today:

• Michael Berger, "Is a taking based on pretext constitutional?," Daily Journal (a take on the Second Circuit's recent decision holding that a property owner could not assert a pretext claim where the allegedly pretextual use did not confer a private benefit.
• Christian Britschgi, "Are 'Squatters' Rights' Out of Control?" Reason (the "squatting" issue has roared into the public zeitgeist lately; if you haven't been following it closely, here's a good place to start).
• Remember that case, currently pending the North Carolina Supreme Court, about what remedies are available if a court invalidates a taking, but the condemnor just goes ahead and seizes the property anyway? Here are all the briefs in that case, including our amicus in support of the property owner).
• Levine, Nash & Schapiro, "The Unconstitutional Conditions Vacuum in Criminal Procedure," 133 Yale L.J. 1401 (2024) (in which the authors argue that the unconstitutional conditions analysis (aka Nollan/Dolan) should be applied in situations where criminal defendants are subject to government coercion; it is interesting to see how those outside the Dirt Law bubble view the doctrine).
• Bianchi, Brifkani, Halaby, Huang, "Court rules for PhRMA in challenge to Oregon drug price transaparency law" JDSupra (a breakdown and summary of a recent District Court decision concluding that an Oregon statute that requires the disclosure of trade secrets is a Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto taking; includes a link to the court's opinion).

Check 'em out.

Lawprof Ilya Somin: "Squatters' Rights Laws Violate the Takings Clause"

Check this out: lawprof Ilya Somin has posted "Squatters' Rights Laws Violate the Takings Clause" at Volokh.

His thesis is just as the title suggests, arguing that state statutes that treat trespassers as tenants are government-authorized physical occupations, and thus are takings:

Ideally, state and local governments should make it easy for property owners to swiftly remove squatters, and should subject the trespassers to civil and criminal sanctions. But where they instead facilitate this violation of property rights, the laws that do so violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires payment of "just compensation" whenever the government takes "private property."

Professor Somin relies on Cedar Point, and addresses the narrow exception to the general rule from that case that all physical invasions and occupations are takings without regard to the diminution in use or value or the owner's expectations, where the government had enabled the same access as does the "traditional common law."

The common law knows about adverse possession, he writes, where a trespasser may gain a property right, but only after meeting fairly rigorous legal tests, where the owner has actual notice of the possession and its adversity to her property rights. These squatter statutes go much further, because they force property owners unwillingly to become lessors.

In other cases where the courts have upheld regulations and restrictions on an owner's right to recover possession from an actual tenant -- you know, someone with whom the owner actually and expressly agreed, and then transferred the right to exclude to the tenant -- the courts frequently note that "no one is forcing you to become a landlord."

Well here, the owner is being forced to become a landlord.

Professor Somin wraps by noting, "I hope property owners and public interest law firms give serious consideration to bringing takings challenges against these laws. They are not a panacea for the problem. But they could help."

Since we are part of a non-profit, pro bono, public interest law firm as the good professor describes, we shall note here that the welcome mat is out, and if the above-situation is your situation, let us know.

NY App Div: Inflation, Bah! Rent Gets Cheaper In Kingston!

New York state, as you might already know, regulates the rent an owner of residential property may charge to a tenant. Under a statute adopted in 1974, regulation is triggered by a locality's declaration of a housing emergency, and the restrictions extend for the duration of the declared emergency. Most famously -- or infamously -- New York City has declared a housing emergency under the statute since that time, and indeed has considered housing an "emergency" for over a century. The 1974 statute also applied to three other NYC-adjacent counties, but not the entire Empire State.

Well, in 2019 the legislature changed that, and "allowed municipalities statewide to opt in to the rent adjustment scheme created by the [1974 Emergency statute] upon a declaration of emergency due to a housing vacancy rate of 5% or less[.]"

In 2019, Kingston was thwarted when it determined its vacancy rate was 6.7% -- too high to invoke emergency powers. But then Co-19 came, and voila! the rate dropped below the magic 5%. Soon thereafter, the city adopted a resolution declaring a housing emergency, and invoked its powers under the 1974 statute to regulate rent on building containing six or more rental units.

The statute requires the formation of a Board to administer the law and determine the rents in the regulated units. The city did so, and the Board came up with this:

On November 9, 2022, following a series of public meetings and hearings, the Board voted to adopt an annual rent adjustment guideline and a fair market rent guideline for the properties subject to the emergency declaration. The fair market rent guideline provided that a tenant could file a fair market rent appeal with respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter DHCR) to seek a refund if his or her rent increased by more than 16% between January 1, 2019 and July 30, 2022; the adjustment guideline, in turn, required that rent charged for one- and two-year leases commencing between August 1, 2022 and September 30, 2023 be reduced by 15% from the base rate.

Read that again. Max rent increase of 16% over base rate between 2019 and 2022. Check. And then a 15% rent reduction from base rate between 2022 and 2023.Who knew that with inflation and the cost of seemingly everything rising, that rent in Kingston is getting cheaper. Like magic!

An association of property owners sued. They challenged the city's claim that the 5% threshold was met, and also whether the city had the authority to lower existing rents. The Supreme Court (this is New York, so "Supreme Court" means a trial court, dun dun), concluded that indeed, the city had met the very low legal bar for showing that as a matter of fact, Kingston was experiencing a vacancy rate below 5%, but also that the city lacked the authority under the 1974 statute to lower rents. Both sides appealed.

In Hudson Valley Property Owners Ass'n Inc. v. City of Kingston, No. CV-23-0327 (Mar. 21, 2024), the Appellate Division did the city a solid: it affirmed the declaration of emergency, but on the city's appeal, reversed and concluded that nothing in the term "adjustment" of rent in the 1975 statute did not mean only an upwards adjustment of rent, but could include lowering rents. 

We're not going to get into the first issue too deeply, which the court viewed as a factual challenge. Yes, the studies and other data supporting the finding the 5% threshold was satisfied might be a bit off here and there, but as we know, the courts generally don't hold the government to very high standards in this area (or anywhere else in NY law), because the city was acting in good faith. Or at least there was no proof it wasn't. Slip op. at  6. The flaws the property owners pointed to were "perceived" and not actual flaws, and the resulting studies were "adequate." And as we know, that's enough to satisfy a court when the government is involved.

On the more interesting issue of whether "adjustment" means only an upwards adjustment of rent, the court had this to say:

Nothing in the applicable statutory language explicitly requires that the Board adjust the rent upward rather than downward as petitioners claim, and petitioners' argument as to why such a requirement should be implied is less than compelling.

Slip op. at 7. That's it. Exactly why that is so, the court does not really explain.

And a blanket downwards "adjustment" was just fine, and no individualized determinations were necessary: if you don't like how this works on your property, property owner, you can appeal.

As we've always thought, facial claims are tough. But find a situation in which a downwards adjustment (or even an inadequate upwards adjustment) forces a property owner to operate in the red (and the owner has the resources, financial and emotional, to push it), or where an owner who wants to exit the rental market and is prohibited from doing so by the law, and you've likely got a different case.

Hudson Valley Property Owners Ass'n Inc. v. City of Kingston, No. CV-23-0327 (N.Y.A.D. Mar. 21, 2024)

Interview - Professor Richard Epstein On Rent Control: The Powers-That-Be Don't Take The "Exit" Option Seriously

Be sure to check out this interview ("Rent Control Is a ‘New York Tragedy’") on Hamodia, with law Professor Richard Epstein.

As you might expect, the interview is full of insights and bon mots. There's even a reference to the judicial takings case, Stop the Beach Renourishment. And a lot of things that just make you shake your head because anyone who had done a modicum of thinking on the rent and vacancy control issue can tell there's no real "exit strategy" by the governments who impose it, and that when the music stops -- as it must, eventually -- someone is going to be left standing up without a chair. It is not, at least as practiced in New York, "sustainable" (in today's parlance).

And when you go to the New York courts, it’s a death trap. They’re all consistently pro-government in these cases. You try moving it to federal court, and you get a very liberal panel. And so the whole thing turns out to be bottled up. You look at the situation in the City Council, and you can wait a long time before the drought will be over. So essentially all the current avenues seem to be over. There’s no state constitutional challenge that’s going to be viable, no federal constitutional challenge that’s going to be viable, there’s going to be no state Capitol override of what is taking place in the city. And the city itself doesn’t want to move. So something has got to give.

What gives is the population: People who cannot find housing in the city at a sensible price march off to places where it doesn’t take you a year and a day to get the first step of a building permit. So off they go to Tennessee, Florida, Texas, South Carolina, Alabama. New York has lost more people in absolute terms than even California, which is no wonderful place. But everybody in power in New York seems to be oblivious to what’s going on, because they don’t take the exit option seriously. And it is going to ruin this city.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of criticisms, but not a lot of suggestions for pathways out of the problem. But nonetheless, please read the entire interview. Well worth your time.

Pass A Good Time: Our Report From The 41st ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Feb 1-3, 2024, New Orleans

When it comes to the longstanding ALI-CLE American Law Institute-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conferences, we're always ready to go. You know that. But this year's version -- the 41st -- was buzzing like no other in recent memory.

Maybe it was the New Orleans venue with its atmo, food, and music for our after-class activities, or even the timing (the second-to-last week on the Mardi Gras parade season, and our conference hotel was right on the routes). It might have been the nice weather (oh, it rained buckets one evening, but there wasn't an ice storm like we experienced in Austin in 2023). Or maybe it was the capacity crowd, and new topics and speakers on the agenda. Or maybe it was just the prospect of seeing our friends and colleagues again after a year.

Here's a photo essay of some of the Conference highlights.

And if you missed out, the webcast was recorded and is available for viewing. Or, better yet, hold on your calendar January 30 through February 1, 2025 for the 42d Conference, to be held at the Westin Bayside San Diego.

Excitement this way...

The view from the podium.
Say "hello" to our opening plenary session in wide-angle.

Prepping the space.
The finished stage that Conference attendees
see isn't how the room starts off.
It takes a lot of work by the ALI-CLE staff
to get the place camera-ready.

The live webcasting of the sessions also takes a lot of
set-up and a ton of equipment. This is just some of it. 

Here's more. 

The badges were arranged on the table with care...

...in trust that our faculty and registrants would soon be there.

No conference would be complete without swag.
Here is but a sampling.

As always, a huge thank you to our generous sponsors.
Without your support, this Conference would not be as
good as it is, year after year.


The Conference site was right on the routes of several parades.
It was difficult to keep focusing on severance damages and larger parcel
when the music and excitement was just outside.
But we tried.


The opening plenary session -- on the U.S. Supreme Court's
big takings case -- got us off to a solid start.


Thanks to Christina Martin and Steve Silva for speaking
on Tyler v Hennepin County.

The view from the podium as Amy Boulris speaks about the most
significant eminent domain decisions of 2023.

The speakers are a mix of practicing lawyers, judges, other eminent domain
professionals, and legal academics. Here, two property scholars --
Timothy Harris and Jessica Asbridge --
discuss how state property law and state courts
can drive the constitutional issues.

Kinnon Williams, Esq. and Christina Thoreson, SR-WA, MAI, CRE 
present on "Valuation of Wasting Assets."

Lawprof Emilio Longoria and attorney Tony Francois
on "What Condemnation Lawyers Need to Understand
About the Clean Water Act After Sackett"
(hint: it goes to highest and best use).

Matthew Ackerman, Marianna Baggett, and Kenneth Haywood
on "The Pitfalls of Objectively Measured Just Compensation:
When Market Value Isn't Enough."

It was not all work and no play.
Again, a big thanks to our generous sponsors.

Our speakers take questions, of course.
We solicit them the old-fashioned way (thanks, James Masterman).

William and Mary Law School Professor
Emerita Lynda Butler (and her former student, North Carolina's
Jeremy Hopkins" discuss property rights in an age of coastal retreat.

Luis Gallardo-Rivera, Dana Berliner, and (off-camera)
Sophia Holley on "Proving and Defending Pretext,
Public Use, and Necessity."

James Masterman and Martye Kendrick on "Preparing Your Witness
to Overcome Obstacles to Highest and Best Use."

Jeff McCoy, Robert McNamara, and Kristen Renfro on
"Getting to Federal Court and Staying There:
Navigating Procedural Mazes in Federal Takings Claims."

Sean Metherell and Nathan Farris zero in on
"How to Win a Future Highest and Best Use Claim: Proving Reasonable
Probability of Rezoning and Other Issues."

Michael Berger is Watching You:
SCOTUS Property Rights Maven Michael Berger zooms in with his
annual "Regulatory Takings Update."

We always hold a spot for Jim Burling on Saturday.
Why? Because his tours-de-force always are interesting
and put people in seats, even on a Saturday morning.

More Big Michael.
Here, sharing his memories of Professor Gideon Kanner.

See you in San Diego!
January 30 - February 1, 2025
Westin San Diego Bayside

2024 Distinguished Gifford Property Lecture - Professor Carol N. Brown (Richmond Law) (March 12, 2024, U. Hawaii Law School)

Join us and our Land Use class, in-person on the campus of the University of Hawaii Law School (or online via Zoom, where it will be livestreamed), as Richmond Law lawprof Carol Brown delivers the 2024 Distinguished Gifford Lecture in Real Property, on March 24, 2024, at 4:40 p.m. Hawaii Time in the Cades Schutte classroom.

Her talk is titled "Affordable Housing A to Z" and is very timely. More details on this flyer.

Made possible by the generosity of one of Hawaii's premiere dirt law firms, Carlsmith Ball, LLP.

Space is limited, so please RSVP here.

2024 Distinguished Gifford Property Lecture - Professor Carol N. Brown (Richmond Law) (March 12, 2024, U. H...

SCOTUS Denies Review To Remaining Rent Control Takings Petitions: "Important and pressing question" (Just Not In This Case)

Yesterday, the other shoe dropped. In this order the U.S. Supreme Court denied review to a case that we've long been following, which challenged aspects of New York's draconian rent control laws as a taking, 74 Pinehurst v. New York.

We say the "other shoe" because ever since the Court denied review months ago to other challenges to rent control (yet kept relisting Pinehurst, which was always among the two strongest of the multiple challenges), it appeared this round of petitions was doomed, and the Court was holding off denying review, to allow one or more Justices to write something. To us, it was unlikely that the Court would deny some of the petitions outright, while at the same time agreeing to take up the issue in another case. Grant-and-hold seemed the most likely scenario there. Absent that, we didn't expect these last two to be granted. 

So count us as not surprised. But as some have noted, there might be a silver lining in this last disappointment. Justice Thomas, while agreeing with the Court to deny review in Pinehurst, wrote a short statement in which he offered his thoughts. It isn't long, and you should read it:

Here's the entire thing:

Petitioners are owners of small and midsize apartment buildings who challenge New York City’s rent stabilization laws. Among other things, they argue that New York City’s regulations grant tenants and their successors an indefinite, infinitely renewable lease terminable only for reasons outside of the landlord’s control. Petitioners argue that they have suffered a per se taking as a result. The constitutionality of regimes like New York City’s is an important and pressing question. There are roughly one million rental apartments affected in New York City alone. See Pet. for Cert. in No. 22–1130, p. 1; Brief in Opposition for City of New York et al. in No. 22–1130, p. 4. And, the Courts of Appeals have taken different approaches: The Second Circuit rejected petitioners’ takings claims at the pleading stage, but at least one other Court of Appeals has accepted similar claims. Compare 59 F. 4th 557 (CA2 2023) (case below), with Heights Apartments, LLC v. Walz, 30 F. 4th 720 (CA8 2022).

The pleadings in these petitioners’ cases, however, would complicate our review. The petitioners’ complaints primarily contain generalized allegations about their circumstances and injuries. But, to evaluate their as-applied challenges, we must consider whether specific New York City regulations prevent petitioners from evicting actual tenants for particular reasons. Similarly, petitioners’ facial challenges require a clear understanding of how New York City regulations coordinate to completely bar landlords from evicting tenants. The pleadings do not facilitate such an understanding. However, in an appropriate future case,we should grant certiorari to address this important question.

So what to make of this. A roadmap for a future case as some have suggested? The holding out of false hope and an invitation to more failed challenges to New York's scheme, and a way of slow-walking the continued validity of rent and vacancy controls as others have claimed? Or maybe a clue to stop focusing on New York for takings and other challenges to rent control because it is too complex and too ingrained in the social fabric?

We're not entirely sure. Probably could never be sure, unless we could arrange a meeting with Justice Thomas and ask him a few questions, and that ain't likely to happen.

But here's how we're taking it.

First, we are taking it at face value. Justice Thomas said that it's a good issue, teed up and ready, and there's even a lower court split. That's usually the promised land for SCOTUS review. But, he noted, the way this case was pleaded made it an unworthy vehicle. Get that, lawyers: the way the complaint was pleaded. Pleaded! It it just us, or are property rights cases fertile grounds for Field Code special pleading, giving us a sense of what medieval writ practice must have been like? It seems we need to plead these claims with a specificity not required in other matters, well beyond the notice pleading our Civil Procedure professors told us was the standard.

Well, with that rant out of the way, let's assume that Justice Thomas is right, and there's a way to draft a complaint to actually, you know, state a claim that a rent or vacancy control is a taking. His as-applied scenario suggests a case that has gone through the eviction-court wringer. Get ready to exhaust, property owners! This sounds like Justice Thomas is suggesting that before a takings claim would be ready, the complaint must plead facts to show who, how, and why the lessor has tried to get a tenant out, but the rent/vacancy control regulations have prevented that. The "particular reasons" he notes seem like the big ones: failure to pay rent, being a danger to other occupants, destroying the property. We often hear lessors say "going through the eviction process is futile, and a waste of time and money, when all I want it to either get the rent flowing again, or the premises returned to me so I can fix it back up and re-rent it." Maybe so, but apparently Justice Thomas believes that a legal challenge to tenant regulations is not going to be ready unless and until you go through the process and come up empty.

Second, we thought the Pinehurst complaint did a pretty good job of cutting through the complex fog that is New York's rent regulations, if that is even possible given its byzantine structure and requirements. But apparently not enough for a "clear understanding of how New York City regulations coordinate to completely bar landlords from evicting tenants." If those pleadings were not enough, what could be? Maybe here, Justice Thomas is suggesting that we look outside of New York for the case. New York may have the most well-known and (in)famous scheme, but it isn't by far the only such scheme in the nation. Identify the relevant issues (physical occupations, re-writing of the lessor/lessee contracts, and turning private rental stock into what is effectively public housing), and look beyond the Hudson for cases.

So what to make of all this? On one hand, the Court's denial is not all that surprising since the weight of statistics is never favorable, and from a practical standpoint, the Court might be reluctant to wade into an issue that would certainly draw political fire, however it ruled. Rent control is so woven into the fabric of New York, it often seems politically impossible to unweave it. On the other hand, the entire notion of rent and vacancy controls -- which started as a temporary emergency measure designed to deal with the flood of returning doughboys from the battlefields of WWI Europe, but has morphed over the past century into a private subsidy that insulates certain protected occupants from market forces -- is ripe for a recoking. Subsidizing tenants may be a public benefit, but if so, shouldn't the entire public bear the freight?

In today's parlance, this is not "sustainable," and someone is going to be left standing when the music eventually stops. The Court will have to face it, one day. Just not today.

That being said, the final word is this: we're ready to follow Justice Thomas's roadmap. If you may have a case, give us a call.

Statement of Justice Thomas respecting the denials of certiorari, 74 Pinehurst, LLC v. New York, No. 23-113...

Peace Out: CA9 OK's Pre-Enforcement Challenge To Rent Control Statute

Check out the U.S. Court of Appeals' opinion in Peace Ranch, LLC v. Bonta, No. 22-16063 (Feb. 13, 2024), where the court concluded that the owner of a mobilehome park could bring a federal court challenge to a California statute, even before the state applied the statute and enforced it.

There's a mobilehome park in Southern California -- Rancho La Paz -- that straddles the line between two separate municipalities, Anaheim and Fullerton. When the owner of the park upped the rent, the municipalities undertook efforts to impose a form of rent control. But those efforts ultimately failed.

Not to be outdone, the state representative from the area pushed for, and got adopted a state statute that seems curiously tailored to cover only Rancho La Paz: certain "qualified" mobilehome parks can only raise the rent a certain amount. The definition of a "qualified" park in the statute is limited to those parks which are within two or more incorporated cites. Gee, what a coincidence!

The owners sued in federal court, alleging a host of constitutional violations, including takings. The district court dismissed, concluding that the statute does not apply to Rancho La Paz because it is not a "qualified" mobilehome park. Hold on, how so? Turns out that the owner of the park alleges that it is not a single park split between two municipalities, but that it is instead two separate parks -- one in Anaheim and one in Fullerton. But what was important, the owner asserted, was that the State believes that the property is a single park that is a "qualified" park and therefore subject to the state's rent controlled statute. The court concluded that it was going to accept the owner's pleaded facts as true, and thus held that there was no "realistic danger of sustaining an injury" by the state's enforcement. 

The owner tried to amend around this, emphasizing that its injury was due to the state wrongly believing that Rancho La Paz is subject to the statute. But to no avail, and the district court dismissed with prejudice. In short, because the owner continued to maintain that it was not covered by the statute, it could only sue if and when the state moved to actually enforce the law. Until then, no claim.

The Ninth Circuit reversed. It focused on the question as one of pre-enforcement standing. Can a plaintiff bring an action challenging a law when the government has not yet formally applied that law to the plaintiff? As the court noted:

Pre-enforcement injury is a special subset of injury-in-fact. Typically, plaintiffs must allege an injury at the time of filing. For pre-enforcement plaintiffs, the injury is the  anticipated enforcement of the challenged statute in the future. One need not violate a criminal law and risk prosecution in order to challenge the law’s constitutionality.

Slip op. at 8.

The entire opinion is worth your time to read. But here's some highlights. First, a plaintiff "need not plan to break the law." Slip op. at 11. Second, the court noted that resolving a standing question does not require "mini litigation of the claims." The court must take as true the allegations in the complaint. Slip op. at 12. Third, the Ranch's conduct need not be definitively within the statutory proscription, merely "arguably" covered. The court noted:

In an effort to preserve future arguments, both parties dance around whether Rancho La Paz is a single mobilehome park straddling two cities or two mobilehome parks, one in each city. Hedging its bets, Peace Ranch alternatively claims that it is a single park (and thus is subject to AB 978) or two parks (and thus escapes the confines of AB 978). The amended complaint describes Rancho La Paz as a “park straddl[ing] two cities” and also alleges that “Peace Ranch believes [Rancho La Paz] is actually two separate parks (one in Anaheim and the other in Fullerton).” In its opening brief, Peace Ranch explains that these allegations “preserve an alternative argument for a future enforcement or other proceeding.” For its part, Peace Ranch is clear on one point—it wants to raise the rents.

The Attorney General maintains that Peace Ranch’s allegation of two parks destroys its standing. There can be, the argument goes, no pre-enforcement standing if the statute does not apply to Peace Ranch.

Slip op. at 13.

As the court notes, there's a logical trap there. The owner ultimately argues that it isn't covered by the statute, but claiming that is the very thing that the state pointed to as saying "ah hah, no standing." Addressing this, the court noted that there's no need to resolve this question at this stage -- for indeed, this is the core merits question:

We can avoid this pickle—an inquiry that seems to unavoidably tangle standing with the merits. One purpose of pre-enforcement standing is to ensure that no law is practically unchallengeable. The risk of being sued by the state will deter many plaintiffs from testing their luck. Thus, the relevant question is whether Peace Ranch plausibly alleged that it refrained from raising rents because of the Attorney General’s interpretation of AB 978.

Slip op. at 14.

Read that again: "plausibly alleged."

That, the court held, coupled with the "substantial threat of enforcement" is enough. Has the government disavowed enforcement? If not, that should be enough. Slip op. at 15. "Here, the Attorney General not only refuses to disavow its intent to enforce but also admits that the law targets Peach Ranch." Id.

This case reminds us of another recent Ninth Circuit decision, Iten v. County of Los Angeles, where the issue was not presented as one of pre-enforcement standing, but plain-old standing.

Our question is this: why doesn't the court's approach here also rule the day when it comes to whether a regulatory takings claim is ripe? Remember that in many regulatory takings claims, the government claims it has not made a "final decision" applying its land use restrictions to the plaintiff's property. We might allow you to build, the government frequently claims. You have to ask us -- and keep asking us -- before any court can say that our actions are a taking.

To us, the court's analysis here -- looking at the facts as alleged in the complaint, the government's disavowal, vel non, of enforcement, and a clear line between pleadings and the ultimate merits question -- should be more widely applied.

Peace Ranch, LLC v. Bonta, No. 22-16063 (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2024)

New Article: Missed Opportunities in State Takings Challenges to Pandemic-Era Restrictions (Brennan Center's State Court Report)

Thank you to the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School's State Court Report (#statecourtreport) for publishing our piece "Missed Opportunities in State Takings Challenges to Pandemic-Era Restrictions." The title gives a hint about what this is about: how state and local government's reaction to Co-19 spurred challenges not only under the U.S. Constitution, but under state constitutions. We give examples of -- and comment on -- missed opportunities and out-and-out errors in several approaches.

Here are the opening paragraphs:

Responding to the Covid-19 pandemic, the federal government and many state and local governments imposed a variety of restrictions on individuals and businesses. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, purported to suspend the ability of property owners to evict nonpaying tenants — a move the U.S. Supreme Court rejected as beyond the agency’s power. State and local governments adopted similar eviction moratoria, and many directed businesses to close or curtail operations. Litigation followed.

Much of that litigation focused on the federal Fifth Amendment’s requirement that the government provide just compensation when it takes private property for public use. Property and business owners have generally been unsuccessful in pressing federal takings claims for Covid-19 restrictions. But it is established that the rights acknowledged by the U.S. Constitution are merely a floor, not a ceiling. This notion recognizes that states may freely offer a higher level of protection of rights under their own laws or more severely restrict the state’s powers (or both). And many state constitutions go further, guaranteeing compensation when property is damaged. 

We also take a quick look at a still-pending case in Michigan, with the hope that the Michigan Supreme Court does not fall into these same traps.

We'd appreciate it if you were to read the entire piece -- it's short, we promise!

No FOMO: There's Still Room For You To Join Us In New Orleans Feb 1-3, 2024 For The 41st ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference

Don't miss out!

We promise: this is the last time we're going to try to entice you to the upcoming ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference in New Orleans. We are getting close to capacity, but there is still room. In recent years, we have standing room only in the Conference halls, and have sold out the hotel block. After all, this is a pretty niche area of law. So what gives?

When we were in Austin last year, we thought it might be nice to try and answer that question. We asked Conference participants why they come, year-after-year (and in Austin, despite massive travel disruptions). Yes, it is the various venues (Nashville, Austin, Scottsdale, Palm Springs, to name a few recent locations), and yes, it is the excellent and useful programming.

But as we suspected it is more than that. As the above video notes, the consistent response from our participants about why the attend is the participants. The faculty and other attendees, the vendors. The collegiality, the chance to renew long-standing friendships, and especially the chance to make new friends and colleagues who share our passion for this area of law. The welcoming environment, and our desire to have lawyers and other professionals new to this area of law or new to the Bar feel at home and welcomed.

We have also made a big effort in the last few years to include a range of professionals from various perspectives, including lawyers, legal academics, jurists, appraisers and MAIs, planners, right of way and relocation experts, and jury and trial consultants. Family members also welcome (there are a lot of "adjacent" social and networking events, and families are welcome as long as they don't mind a lot of "shop talk"). Our program is a mix of practical and substantive sessions.

We also have a special track on the first day of the Conference designed as a crash course in Eminent Domain law ("Condemnation 101"), which is a good place for an overview and introduction to the practice, or as a refresher course for those with more time under your belt.

In short, we try and make the Conference not just a place to learn the latest in eminent domain and related topics, but somewhere you can return to each year, and feel welcome.

So if you have not attended before, give us a try! We'd love to see you in New Orleans in just a few months. Registration is still open. Sign up now, and don't miss out.

Cases And Links From Today's ABA State & Local Govt Law Land Use Presentation

Here are the cases that Michael Berger and I discussed in today's presentation to the ABA State and Local Government Law Section's Land Use group. It was good seeing everyone, even virtually:

• Sheetz v. County of El Dorado - are legislatively-imposed exactions subject to the nexus and proportionality requirements of Nollan/Dolan? (SCOTUS)
• Devillier v. Texas - must the government consent to be sued for just compensation? (SCOTUS)
• Watson Memorial Spiritual Temple of Christ v. Korban - the payment of a final just compensation judgment is ministerial, and may be compelled by a writ of mandamus (Louisiana Court of Appeal)
• The New York Rent Control cases - two still pending (SCOTUS)
• Gearing v. City of Half Moon Bay - abstaining from adjudicating a regulatory takings case under Pullman abstention (Ninth Circuit; cert. denied)
• Ateres Bais Yaakov Academy of Rockland v. Town of Clarkstown - RLUIPA claim is ripe; court rejected the "land use is local" trope (2d Cir.)
• Catholic Healthcare Int'l, Inc. v. Genoa Township - RLUIPA claim ripe because Township had taken a "definitive position" on what uses were allowed and not allowed on plaintiff's property, even though there remained a possibility that the Township might allow the use (6th Cir.)
• Yes in My Backyard v. City of Los Angeles - the general plan is law, and controls over zoning (Cal. Super. Ct.)
• Idaho Power Co. v. Bean - some precondemnation entries are takings (Or. Cir. Ct.)
• Town of Apex v. Rubin - after a taking is invalidated for lack of public use, what if the condemning agency just takes it anyway? (N.C. S. Ct. review granted)

Check em out.

And if you are not a member of the ABA State and Local Government Law Section, you should be. Come, join us!

Hawaii Five-80: More Land Use (Law 580) At The University Of Hawaii

Starting in January, we'll be helping our friend and former law partner Mark M. Murakami with the venerated and oh-so-important Land Use course (Law 580) at the University of Hawaii's Law School.

We're temporarily stepping into some mighty big slippers (this is Hawaii, so we don't always wear shoes), as this is the course that our mentor Professor David Callies taught for decades. And is there a better venue in which to teach and study land use law and regulation, and its limits? After all, Hawaii may be the most heavily-regulated land on the planet, and is a focal point for every issue you can think of, from zoning to environmental restrictions to takings to public trust to subdivision to admin law to ... well, you get the drift.

We'll cover those topics, as well as the fundamentals. And we have a few surprises up our sleeves -- some impressive guest lecturers, explorations of dirt law careers, and maybe a field trip or two.

We'll bring you the highlights here, as they happen. Is there a bit of pressure on us to get it right? You bet. But are we looking forward to it (not just an opportunity to head back to the 808, but because this is a great subject)? You bet.

Here's The Program For The 41st ALI-CLE Eminent Domain And Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Feb 1-3, 2024, New Orleans

Here's the brochure and the full agenda and registration information for the upcoming ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference at the JW Marriott in New Orleans, February 1-3, 2024.

This is the long-running nationally-focused conference on all things eminent domain, takings, valuation, and related. We have three tracks, from which you can choose a la carte - Practice, Substantive, and Condemnation 101:

For over 40 years, we’ve been bringing eminent domain practitioners together to examine the latest issues, engage in healthy debate, and get the information they need to stay current in their practice. This year – our 41st – is THE perfect time to reunite with your eminent domain colleagues. There will be plentiful opportunities to meet and mingle with the faculty and other registrants – throughout the conference and at evening social events. Attendees come back year after year to make new friendships and renew longstanding ones – in a welcoming environment and amongst others who share the same passion for this area of the law.

Please check it out. Over the next couple of weeks we shall bring you details of the various programs.

If you have joined us in the past, you know what a worthwhile conference this is. If this will be your first time, welcome; we hope that you will become a long-term colleague.

Register now, and reserve your spot. In the past few years, we've sold out the hotel block and the Conference seats. So don't miss out!

2024 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference Brochure, Feb. 1-3, 2024, New Orleans,...

Supreme Court Property Rights Round-Up

Here's what we're reading about the Supreme Court's property rights docket -- some good, some disappointing -- this day.

• Niina Farah, "Supreme Court flooding case could ripple across the energy sector" (E & E News / Energywire) - About the Devillier case (which we summarized here), in which we were quoted: "The Supreme Court decision to hear the Devillier case comes after a concerted effort in recent years to convince the court to address procedural maneuvers that have made it challenging for property owners to bring their claims to court, said Robert Thomas, director of property rights litigation at the Pacific Legal Foundation. The nonprofit is among the groups that has asked the court to address takings cases and has lent its support for the property owners in Devillier in a 'friend of the court' brief. 'There’s a lot of gamesmanship going on trying to avoid getting to the actual core question — is compensation owed for the take?' Thomas told E&E News. 'You will see local governments, and often the federal government, interposing these procedural defenses to move the chess pieces around.' This case is an example of how court procedure is being used to stymie damage claims from property owners, he added.
• Bob Egelko, "U.S. Supreme Court agrees to decide legality of fees charged to California homebuilders" (San Francisco Chronicle) - About the Sheetz case (which we summarized here), "Christopher Elmendorf, a UC Davis law professor who has written extensively about housing issues, said a ruling in Sheetz’s favor could also allow challenges to 'inclusionary zoning' rules in San Francisco and other communities, which require new developments to contain a certain percentage of affordable-housing units. That might encourage more housing construction in the short run, he said, but it probably wouldn’t have a major impact on the housing shortage in California.
• Suzannah Cavanaugh & Kathrun Brenzel, "Supreme Court didn't save landlords. now what?" (TheRealDeal) - About the Court's denial of one of the three petitions challenging New York's draconian amendments to its rent control law (there are two other cert petitions, both of which were relisted; see here and here).
• Andria Cheng, "Supreme Court Denies Challenge to New York's Rent Regulation Law" (CoStar News) - More on the rent control petition denial.

Let's hope there's more good property rights news from SCOTUS to report soon.

 

ALI-CLE's Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference (Feb 1-3, 2024, New Orleans): Why Attend? Here's Why.

Why is it, you ask, that the ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference (scheduled next February 1-3, 2024, in New Orleans) is an event that seems to be growing in popularity and attendance. In recent years, we have standing room only in the Conference halls, and have sold out the hotel block. After all, this is a pretty niche area of law. So what gives?

When we were in Austin earlier this year, we thought it might be nice to try and answer that question. We asked Conference participants why they come, year-after-year (and in Austin, despite massive travel disruptions). Yes, it is the various venues (Nashville, Austin, Scottsdale, Palm Springs, to name a few recent locations), and yes, it is the excellent and useful programming.

But as we suspected it is more than that. As the above video notes, the consistent response from our participants about why the attend is the participants. The faculty and other attendees, the vendors. The collegiality, the chance to renew long-standing friendships, and especially the chance to make new friends and colleagues who share our passion for this area of law. The welcoming environment, and our desire to have lawyers and other professionals new to this area of law or new to the Bar feel at home and welcomed.

I can personally attest to that one, having been welcomed to a Conference long ago by Toby Brigham, who although he was one of the Chairs of the event, made it a point to notice that I was a new attendee, and to introduce me around to the "old hands."

We have also made a big effort in the last few years to include a range of professionals from various perspectives, including lawyers, legal academics, jurists, appraisers and MAIs, planners, right of way and relocation experts, and jury and trial consultants. Family members also welcome (there are a lot of "adjacent" social and networking events, and families are welcome as long as they don't mind a lot of "shop talk"). Our program is a mix of practical and substantive sessions.

We also have a special track on the first day of the Conference designed as a crash course in Eminent Domain law ("Condemnation 101"), which is a good place for an overview and introduction to the practice, or as a refresher course for those with more time under your belt.

In short, we try and make the Conference not just a place to learn the latest in eminent domain and related topics, but somewhere you can return to each year, and feel welcome.

So if you have not attended before, give us a try! We'd love to see you in New Orleans in just a few months. Registration and hotel reservation now open. Sign up now, and don't miss out.

Register Now For The 20th Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference, Oct. 26-27, 2023

Heads-up: the registration page for the 20th Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference, October 26-27, 2023, at the William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia, is now up.

Early registration is a good thing because space is limited, especially at the Wren Building banquet on the 26th, at which the 2023 B-K Property Rights Prize will be presented to Prof. Gregory Alexander.

So please don't miss out.

The Property Rights Hall of Fame (second plaque)

If you are not already familiar with the Conference, it is (in our opinion) the best one-day event on property and property rights theory and practice. Expressly designed to bring together the legal academy and the practicing dirt law bar, the conference is where we discuss the burning property and property rights issues of the day. Here's the 2023 Program:

• Property and Propriety (or a Well-Ordered Society): A Tribute to Gregory S. Alexander
• Equity’s Role in Defining Property Rights
• Roundtable: Emerging Issues
• The Restatement’s Impact on Property Rights
• The Scalability of Property Rights (or the extent to which interests in property are or should be constitutionally protected)

Details here.

For more on the Conference, see our report from the 2022 Conference (more here as well).

Come, join us!

Another Cert Petition Challenging NY's Draconian Rent Control As A Taking

Here's the latest in a case we've been following, one of the multiple challenges to New York's latest ratcheting up of rent control.

We think the Questions Presented spell out the issues pretty well:

New York has implemented the most sweeping and onerous rent control provisions the United States has ever seen in its Rent Stabilization Laws and accompanying regulations (“the RSL”). As recently amended, the RSL makes New York’s once “temporary” rent stabilization regime permanent for over one million apartments. Petitioners are owners of apartment buildings regulated by the RSL. The RSL expropriates a definitional feature of Petitioners’ real property—the right to exclude—by granting their tenants a perpetual right to renew their leases. The RSL closes off all viable exit options for Petitioners to change the use of their property and thus avoid RSL regulation. These provisions, when combined with the RSL’s ceiling on the rents that landlords can collect, have ensured that Petitioners cannot earn a just and reasonable rate of return. The RSL has dramatically reduced the economic value of Petitioners’ property beyond any reasonable expectation. Nevertheless, the Second Circuit held the RSL did not effect any taking of Petitioners’ property without just compensation.

The questions presented are:

(1) Does the RSL effect a per se physical taking by expropriating Petitioners’ right to exclude?

(2) Does the RSL effect a confiscatory taking by depriving Petitioners of a just and reasonable return?

(3) Does the RSL effect a regulatory taking as an unconstitutional use restriction of Petitioners’ property?

Stay tuned here, or follow along on the Court's docket.

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, 335-7 LLC v. City of New York, No. 22-1170 (U.S. May 30, 2023) by RHT on Scribd

New Cert Petition: Forcing Owners To Rent To Tenants Indefinitely Is A Categorical Taking

Here's the latest in a case we've been following since its inception, this cert petition seeking Supreme Court review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's affirming the district court's dismissal of a complaint alleging that New York (state)'s sweeping amendments to its Rent Stabilization (rent control) statute effected categorical and Penn Central takings:

Petitioners’ physical-takings claims would have been allowed to proceed if they were brought in the Eighth Circuit. That is because the Eighth Circuit has correctly held that property owners plead a physical taking under Cedar Point where a law prohibits them from terminating a tenancy at the end of a lease term. See Heights Apartments, LLC v. Walz, 30 F.4th 720, 733 (8th Cir. 2022), reh’g en banc denied, 30 F.4th 720. But the Second Circuit held here—as has the Ninth Circuit—that the physical-takings principles articulated in Cedar Point are not implicated when an owner voluntarily offered housing for rent in the first instance. These courts instead read Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992), as precluding physical-takings claims so long as the property owner may evict tenants in the event they breach the lease or engage in other forms of malfeasance—thus carving out a special and particularly deferential landlord-tenant exception to the general principles articulated in Cedar Point. Those courts misread Yee, which reserved the question whether a taking would occur if a law forced “a landowner over objection to rent his property or to refrain in perpetuity from terminating a tenancy.” Id. at 528.

In affirming the dismissal of Petitioners’ regulatory-takings claims, the Second Circuit also split from other circuits on every Penn Central factor. The court deemed irrelevant the impact that the law would have on Petitioners’ property rights, explaining that it was “of no moment” that they are forced to bear burdens that others are not. App. 16a. The court also viewed the character of the governmental action—which forces Petitioners to house tenants against their will—as counting against Petitioners’ claims because the law serves important public purposes and “courts are not in the business of second-guessing legislative determinations such as this one.” Id. The Second Circuit’s ruling confirms that this Court’s “current regulatory takings jurisprudence leaves much to be desired.” Bridge Aina Le’a, LLC v. Haw. Land Use Comm’n, 141 S. Ct. 731, 731 (2021) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).

Pet. at 2-3.

Here are the Questions Presented:

Petitioners own small apartment buildings in New York City that are subject to New York’s Rent Stabilization Law (“RSL”). Once an owner leases a unit for a fixed term, the RSL grants the tenant and the ten-ant’s successors a perpetual right to renew the lease, regardless of whether the owner consents. That renewal right strips owners of their right to exclude others from their property and prevents them from living in their own apartments. The Second Circuit held that these facts failed to state a physical-takings claim because Petitioners voluntarily entered the rental market in the first instance and could, in some circumstances, evict tenants who breach their leases. Petitioners’ regulatory-takings claims likewise failed because, among other reasons, the RSL serves an important purpose and does not deprive petitioners’ property of all value. In so holding, the Second Circuit deepened or created circuit splits at each step of its analysis. The questions presented are:

1. Whether a law that prohibits owners from terminating a tenancy at the end of a fixed lease term, except on grounds outside the owner’s control, constitutes a physical taking.

2. Whether allegations that such a law conscripts private property for use as public housing stock, and thereby substantially reduces its value, state a regulatory takings claim.

Stay tuned.

Petition for a Writ of Ceritorari, 74 Pinehurst LLC v. New York, No. ____ (U.S. May 17, 2023)

Bust A Deal, Face The Wheel: NYC Rendering Commercial Lease Guaranty Clauses Unenforceable For Co-19 Violates Contracts Clause

This just in: the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has issued this Opinion & Order in the case which challenges New York City's rendering "guaranty clauses" in commercial leases unenforceable due to the declared Co-19 emergency.

This is a case we've been following. Earlier, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of the case, holding that the city's ordinance rendering forever unenforceable certain provisions in commercial leases:

A provision in a commercial lease or other rental agreement involving real property located within the city that provides for one or more natural persons who are not the tenant under such agreement to become, upon the occurrence of a default or other event, wholly or partially personally liable for payment of rent, utility expenses or taxes owed by the tenant under such agreement, or fees and charges relating to routine building maintenance owed by the tenant under such agreement, shall not be enforceable against such natural persons if the conditions of paragraph 1 and 2 are satisfied.

The district court held that the plaintiffs have Article III standing, because they have been permanently barred from ever enforcing these guaranty clauses. Slip op. at 12 ("This kind of 'monetary injury' to the Plaintiffs—permanently barring them from collecting more than a hundred thousand dollars in unpaid rent for a prime commercial tenancy in the heart of Manhattan—plainly establishes that they ha[ve] suffered a concrete injury in fact under Article III.'"). The court also concluded that the remedy the plaintiffs seek -- invalidation -- would redress that injury, because freed of the city's prohibition, plaintiffs could then attempt to enforce the clauses in their leases.

The heart of the ruling starts of page 14 of the slip opinion. The bottom line is that the court concluded the ordinance is a substantial impairment of the commercial owner/tenant contracts, because

Yes, "the City's effort to mitigate the devastating economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a legitimate public purpose[,]" slip op. at 16, but that does not get the city off the hook, because "the Court finds that the Law fails to withstand means-ends scrutiny under the final prong of the Sullivan test." Id. 

The court concluded that the city failed to support with additional evidence its decision to place the entire burden of alleviating the emergency on property owners. The city argued that the ordinance merely encouraged owners to renegotiate their leases on terms more favorable to their tenants, but the court wasn't buying it: "But it does not explain how the City concluded, with a change to the commercial leases rendering guaranty clauses permanently unenforceable, that guarantors would have any incentive based on the Law to enter negotiations with landlords regarding unpaid rent." Slip op. at 28.

There were four other reasons set out in the Opinion & Order, and the one we're going to focus on is set out starting on page 31. There, the court held that the ordinance does not compensate property owners for unpaid rent. Unlike other laws of this nature which included what we might call "mitigation" provisions (and were temporary), the court noted that New York's ordinance did no such thing, and permanently wiped out the obligation and did not contain any provision mitigating the damage to the owners, or otherwise providing for compensation:

The record now confirms that Plaintiff Bochner has been unable to recover unpaid rent amounts totaling approximately $110,000, and that, via another business account, he paid $35,000 in taxes for the property due July 1, 2020. Dkt. 104, Ex. NN at 46. As neither party disputes, the Guaranty Law itself provides no assistance to landlords like Bochner. The City, however, argues that the Court should concentrate on the fact that Bochner did not pay property takes on 287 7th Avenue from a personal account, see Def. Mem. at 20 n.12, and that Plaintiff 7th Avenue was able to obtain a pandemic relief loan from the SBA, see id. at 24. The City also emphasizes Plaintiffs were able to borrow from other successful business ventures, and that they “weather[ed] the pandemic” in other ways, including because the tenant left behind restaurant fixtures which were then leased along with the commercial space to a different restaurant in October 2020. Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 102–03; Dkt. 104, Ex. NN 34:24–35:18, 55:17–18.

Such obfuscation is unavailing. The fact remains that Plaintiffs here were damaged, to the tune of approximately $150,000, and have not been compensated—precisely the concern that the Second Circuit wanted the City to address on remand. As to the SBA disaster loan, Bochner explained that it has not been forgiven, and that he must pay “four [or] five” percent interest until it is fully paid off. Dkt. 104, Def. Ex. VV, at 46–47.

Slip op. at 32.  

No way the city quits, so next stop we presume is back with the Second Circuit.

Opinion & Order, Melendez v. City of New York, No. 1:20-cv-05301-RA (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2023)52

One Guess What The Second Circuit Did With A Takings Challenge To Rent Control

Let's say you know nothing else about an appeal except it is being decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the case is a constitutional challenge to rent control. What's your best guess about the outcome (the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim)?

When the Second Circuit issued its summary order in just such a case last week -- a challenge to the "Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019" -- we decided to undertake a little unscientific poll to see whether others out in the Twitterverse predicted as we did.

Looks like so. Yes, the sampling size was small, and the respondents were only those who voluntarily offered their thoughts. But 95% accurately predicted that the property owners would lose, as the Second Circuit indeed held in an appellate court's version of "laughing heartily" at an appellant's arguments: an unpublished summary order.

We could spend the rest of this post going through all of the reasons why the Second Circuit didn't find a scintilla of reversal in the property owners' arguments. But the Order is so short, you might as well read it yourself.

Short story: facial claim? Nope, no physical taking because you fool landlords let tenants in your properties. No facial reg take either, because "different landlords have greatly varying expectations." Order at 4. Rather than serve as an apt illustration of why the "expectations" part of the Penn Central test focuses on an irrelevant inquiry, the Second Circuit effectively concludes that reg takings claims can never be raised as facial claims. 

Same outcome for the as-applied claims: no plausible allegation of a physical taking because there's still the possibility of getting tenants out, and owners are not prohibited from exit the rent-controlled market by getting out of the rental market; the law merely "restricts a landlord's ability to profit by converting a rent stabilized unit to a market-rate unit[.]" Order at 6. And, for good measure, these claims are not ripe because the owners didn't plead that they tried to get anyone out. As for the as-applied regulatory takings claim, the claim is not ripe because the complaint does not allege that the owners tried to take advantage of any of the non-futile procedures to obtain a hardship exemption. And even if ripe, the owners lose "on the merits." (Remember this is an appeal from at 12(b)(6) dismissal, so what "the merits" has to do with anything is beyond us.)

So what might the 95% response indicate? People have very good predictive powers? Our colleagues are as cynical and jaded as we are? Constitutional challenges to rent control are so lacking in merit and plead-worthiness that courts rightly laugh them out of court? The Second Circuit is predictable but in other circuits you might get a more balanced view?

Or maybe -- just maybe -- something else is at play here, and, like a lot of other courts have done before it, the Second Circuit isn't about to upset the apple cart and do anything to undermine what started off, like a lot of these things do, as an "emergency" measure now fossilized into an untouchable entitlement (but an entitlement that is not paid for by the taxpayers, but by private property owners)? In these cases, the lower courts aren't likely to do doodly-squat, and rent control cases will be pushed up to the Supreme Court until that Court does something more than repeatedly decline to review the issue.  

Summary Order, 335-7 LLC v. City of New York, No. 21-823 (2d Cir. Mar. 1, 2023)

A National Zoning Expert Pays A Visit To The L580 Land Use Class At U. Hawaii

The session was recorded.
Here's the video and audio.

Earlier this week, planner M. Nolan Gray, author of the new book, "Arbitrary Lines: How Zoning Broke the American City and How to Fix It" (Island Press 2022) joined our Land Use class at the University of Hawaii Law School to talk about zoning and housing.

The title of his talk was "Are zoning laws the cause of Hawaii's housing crisis?" The subject matter is important, and the public was invited to join us. As you can see, there was a lot of interest in this critical topic and turnout was excellent. 

Thank you to the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii for their sponsorship of the event, and for generously getting Mr. Gray to Honolulu for his in-person appearance. It was also nice to have refreshments following class, and a chance to "talk story" (as we say) with our speaker, the students, and our guests.

Grassroot recorded the session on video, and we shall post a link to it once it is published and available. If you could not join us for his talk, be sure to watch and listen to the recording. Some very compelling stuff.

The public was also invited.
(We let them know they arrived at the right place.)


All set up and ready for our guest speaker.
Recording posted here. 

What is Zoning? A good question (the impression is that "zoning"
means all regulation of land uses). Not quite. Generally speaking, the term 
only covers regulation of use, density, and height. Getting the terms correct
is important. Mr. Gray does not advocate for tossing all regulation,
only zoning. He advocates for a more planning-centric
approach. Read his book for the details.

The heart of the matter: how and why overly restrictive zoning
(see above) inevitably restricts the supply of housing by focusing
mostly on single-family residential. Leave zoning the way it is,
and you are effectively planning for an affordability crisis.

A good, engaged audience.

Mahalo, Nolan, for coming all this way. 

We allocated plenty of time for questions from the audience.

Ice Ice Baby: A Report From The 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Feb 1-4, 2023, Austin

We were eagerly anticipating 40th American Law Institute-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference. The 2022 Conference in Scottsdale was one of the first meetings where everyone was back in-person (and was a smashing success), but that conference was early in the game so not everyone could or would attend. But in the past year most of us got back to some semblance of "normal," and the turnout promised to be good.

We had record registrations: with over 300 attendees, faculty, and staff signed up, things were shaping up.

Plus, we were headed to Austin, Texas. The last time we held the Conference there in 2016, we loved it so much it has been in-demand for a return visit. And this year is the debut Conference for some new planning co-chairs for both the main tracks as well as the "Condemnation 101" tracks, so the buzz for the 2023 Austin Conference was building.

But then the weather reminded us that Mother Nature is often the boss. 

Very Icy Austin on Wednesday (Conference Eve).

On Tuesday, one day before the Conference was to get underway, the 2023 Central Texas Ice Storm blew in and things were gonna get (as they say) "challenging."

Austin Airport effectively shut down with few flights in or out. Planes and cancellations stacked up nationwide. And even for those nearby, slick icy roads, and seemingly everything was closed, from gas stations to hotels to restaurants. Widespread power outages. 

Were we ready with Plan B if people couldn't get on-site? Read on.

Unless you are already here or are driving,
you ain't getting to Austin via AUS any time soon, pard.

Even flying from sunny California was a problem.

Ticket agent: Austin flight cancelled. How about flying to Houston and then driving?

Me: Sure, that'll work. Just get me to Texas and I'll figure it out from there.

Improvise, adapt, overcome: planes, trains, and automobiles (and car rentals, and long-distance rideshares, and four-layovers-from-Boise flights). Jacksonville to Austin via Chicago and Nashville.

Although those of us who made it to Austin were receiving widespread reports of people delayed and rerouted, we had only a handful who said they would not be pressing forward to get here. 

When this is what greets you when you arrive
at your conference site...uh oh.

And yes, Austin was cold and icy. Most things shuttered and widespread loss of power. But the Conference venue was up and running, and throughout the day on Wednesday, faculty, staff, and attendees were showing up. Trickling in, but showing up or on the way.

When this is what you see at the United Airlines
luggage counter, you ask yourself:
Can I make my presentation in a t-shirt and sweats? (Yes!)

We had confidence, and were prepared
for everyone to get to Austin.

So the aforementioned Plan B went into effect. Agenda items shuffled from tomorrow to today because the speaker is here, now. One speaker in the room, one speaker remote. Our audience is full of experts ... say, Billy can you pinch-hit on this panel? Sure. One speaker remoting in from his (unexpected) hotel room in Phoenix and presenting, before he went to the airport in the afternoon to continue on to Austin.

And so forth. Our long-time ALI-CLE Program Attorney, Amy Weinberg (who was delayed out of Philadelphia) was working furiously behind the scenes doing a lot of juggling, updating, texting and calling, and making alternative arrangements. And the tech team from ALI-CLE was preparing for overload if needed.

Plan A: continue to set the room up, assuming everyone is here or on the
way, and we'll have most or all of our people in the room.

Our Planning Chairs were ready, even if not
all of us were actually there (yet).

Plan B: the ALI-CLE technical crew was prepared to livestream
and record the Conference if the weather made travel
to Austin impossible or infeasible.

The tech command center.

Before we go on, a big thank you to our generous sponsors.
Without your support, this Conference would not be as
good as it is, year after year.

We're underway, with a pretty good crowd.

Thursday morning, 9:00 a.m., and we're looking not too bad. A fair number of folks have pressed forward despite the weather and travel disruptions and are in the room. More report they are not tapping out, and are pressing onwards.

We have more viewers remote than we originally anticipated, but the tech is holding up.

Over the next couple of days, our lawyers, judges, legal scholars, appraisers, law students, right-of-way agents, relocation experts, property owners, and other related professionals made their way to Austin.

The fact that folks who were experiencing some rather dramatic travel difficulties and delays (ask Jack about his late night Uber from Houston airport to Austin, or how our west coasters got re-routed all over creation), didn't quit but were determined to get to Austin told us something about why this Conference has been so successful over the decades.

It's more than great programming from the nation's experts. The Conference is also an essential venue to get acquainted with new colleagues and welcome them to the Dirt Law Bar, reconnect with long-time friends, and have a bit of fun together.

Most of the Conference attendees eventually made it, and very few (reasonably) threw in the towel and turned around for home. This was the 40th edition of the Conference, and we really know why it is one of the most-established and successful conferences in the ALI-CLE stable of programs. This year's experience really drove home why we come, and why our attendees and faculty are so dedicated and committed, despite the sacrifices we make to attend or to present. 

Hybrid: Pacific Legal Foundation's John Groen
remoting in while en-route via Phoenix, and
Baylor lawprof Jessica Asbridge on
"Everything Old is New Again: Why Today’s Practitioners
Need to Understand the Original Meaning of the
Takings and Just Compensation Clauses."


The "Condemnation 101" track was wildly popular
both with new members of the Eminent Domain Bar,
as well as old hands. Standing room only throughout the day.

We also had reports from the field that the remote viewing
was going well. Here's how we looked in the
mountains of North Carolina.

Let's not forget the substance of the Conference.
Lots of practical learning. Here's Hawaii's Mark Murakami
and Virginia's Steve Clarke on "Avoiding the Real Jeopardy:  
Structuring Eminent Domain Settlements."
And no, two-time Jeopardy! champion Steve did not
give answers in the form of a question.

Weather throughout Wednesday and Thursday was icy and nasty,
but towards the end of Thursday seemed to be clearing up.

Consequently, the view from the podium looked better and better
with more showing up and more reporting they were nearly there.

The programming at the Conference is traditionally
a mix of practical subjects and the more theoretical.
Here's one of the highlight latter programs,
Alan Ackerman (Michigan), Matthew Ackerman (also Michigan),
and Steve Davis (Missouri) on "What Does the Supreme Court
Mean When it Says Just Compensation is “Self-Executing?"

There's an ethics program, naturally, for those of us in jurisdictions
with mandatory CLE requirements. But we try and not do "typical"
(i.e., boring) ethics programs. Here's Sarah Kellner (Colorado) and
Shane Rayman (Ontario, CN) on "Ethics: Building Your Practice
by Mentoring the Next Generation of Eminent Domain Professionals."

An example of our practice-oriented programming: Tony DellaPelle
(New Jersey), Bernadette Duran-Brown (California), 
and Andrew Lines (Illinois) on "Preparing Your Expert
Witness to Shine in Virtual Proceedings:
Tools and Tips For Trial Lawyers." 

Andrew actually pretended he was far, far away for his "deposition"
when he was in fact one floor up from the Conference room.
Way to go all-in.

Thanks to our generous sponsors, we were able to avoid Austin's
icy roads and have our Mickelthwait barbecue
brought in for lunch. Was it well-received? See for yourself. Line
was through the lobby and nearly out the front door.

Thank you to Texas Supreme Court Justice Jimmy Blacklock
for speaking on "Developing Property Right Issues in Texas,
Questions and Answers with Justice Jimmy Blacklock"
(interviewed by Justin Hodge (Texas)

It was not an echo-chamber either. Here, in a hotly-debated
session, Jeff Redfern (Virginia), Steve Silva (Nevada), and
Lawprof Emilio Longoria (St Mary's Law, Texas)
debate "When the SWAT Team Comes (No) Knocking:
Police Power Takings."

Jeff, Steve, and Prof Longoria's session got everyone's blood pumping.

It wasn't all serious, and we had a bit of fun.
Like this after-hours live edition of the Eminent Domain & Right of Way
Clubhouse with Beth Smith (Wisconsin), Patrick McAllister (Indiana)
and some dude who was having a post-CLE session beer.

Some of our faculty are more formal and like to speak
standing at the lectern. Here, Pacific Legal Foundation's Jon Houghton
(New Jersey) and Ben Stormes (Montana) on
"Avoiding Pitfalls When Trying a Penn Central Case:
Lessons From the Takings Trenches."

Others are less formal, and speak while sitting
(and wildly gesticulating to make sure you are paying attention).
Kristen Renfro (California), and some guy on
"Your Regulatory Takings Case is in Federal Court – Now What?"

By Friday morning, the Austin weather was looking up. Really up.
And we nearly had everyone in the room.
By hook or by crook, most everyone was there.

By Friday were were pretty much back to normal.
Nearly all faculty and all attendees in the room.
And thus we turned it over to our Saturday morning stalwarts,
starting with Jim Burling, here speaking about "The Many Theories of
Property - Do They Matter in Court?" (and Pufendorf)

No one wanted to miss Michael Berger's "Regulatory Takings Update"
on Saturday morning either.

When you can fill this many seats at a CLE conference on a
Saturday morning after two full days of programming,
you know your speakers are the
right ones (thank you Jim and Michael).

After Jim and Michael did their thing, we held our "National Forum,"
a moderated "open-mic" session where Conference attendees
take to the podium and speak about their case or issue,
or crowdsource a question. Here, Pacific Legal
Foundation's Kady Valois, speaking about
our firm's latest takings cert grant.

We were happy to announce that the 41st ALI-CLE Eminent Domain &
Land Valuation Litigation Conference will be held February 1-3, 2024,
at the JW Marriott in New Orleans.
Save the date!

Ivy Cadle (Georgia - Go Dawgs!) is already planning his trip to
#EminentDomain 2024 in New Orleans.
See you there, Ivy.

With the programming wrapped up, it was time for farewells
and thank yous. Here, four of our law students from William and Mary Law,
who took the time out of their schedules to make their way to
Austin for some real-world learning and networking.
Well done, new colleagues!

Even after the proceedings closed, there was more work to be done.
Here, the ALI-CLE Tech Team breaks it down, after successfully
guiding us through the past four days. They are a large part of the
reason why this Conference works so well (plus, they make the
speakers look really good on camera).

To those who joined us - in-person or on-line, thank you. This conference reminded us of why this program is so successful, and why we all return year-after-year.

To those of you who didn't (or couldn't) join us, here's what you missed. You need to remedy that, and come join us next year in New Orleans...

We'll see you in New Orleans for
#EminentDomain2024!
(Want to keep the conversation going in the
interim? Join the ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference
page on LinkedIn.)

CA2, Pellucidly:* You Let 'Em In, Property Owners, So New York Can Tell You To Keep 'Em (Part I)

Here's the latest in a case we've been following since its inception.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the Eastern District of New York's 12(b)(6) dismissal of a complaint alleging that New York (state)'s sweeping amendments to its Rent Stabilization (rent control) statute effected physical and regulatory takings.

First, this can't be a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to how courts treat rent control. Putting aside for a moment the legal theories and the various challenges, rent control has become so ossified -- such a political third-rail and sacred cow -- that courts are very reluctant to do anything to upset the system, and will approve most any ratcheting-up of the restrictions. Any challenger, whatever the logic of their legal theory, has to recognize that they start off in a very deep hole.

That said, let's take a look at the Second Circuit's opinion because this case is, by all accounts, headed to the Supreme Court (and always has been aimed in that direction).  

Physical Occupation?

The plaintiffs, owners of apartments subject to the amended rent control statute, asserted the law effected facial and as-applied takings. The first claim was for a physical occupation. The statute deprived them of the right to exclude, they argued,  because they have to house tenants at below-market rates. The panel opinion didn't beat around the bush, but got right to the heart of the reasons why it affirmed the dismissal - the owners have no right to exclude, relying on Yee v. City of Escondido because you let the tenants in:

However, where—as here—property owners voluntarily invite third parties to use their properties, regulations of those properties are “readily distinguishable” from those that compel invasions of properties closed to the public. Cedar Point, 141 S. Ct. at 2077. As the Supreme Court made pellucid in Yee v. City of Escondido, when “a landowner decides to rent his land to tenants” the States “have broad power to regulate housing conditions in general and the landlord-tenant relationship in particular without paying compensation for all economic injuries that such regulation entails.” 503 U.S. 519, 528–29; see also Loretto, 458 U.S. at 440 (“This Court has consistently affirmed that States have broad power to regulate housing conditions in general and the landlord-tenant relationship in particular without paying compensation for all economic injuries that such regulation entails.”); Home Building & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934); Edgar A. Levy Leasing Co. v. Siegel, 258 U.S. 242 (1922). The numerous cases that affirm the validity of rent control statutes are the necessary result of this long line of consistent authority. See, e.g., Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503 (1944); Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135 (1921).

Slip op. at 7.

We've never quite wrapped our head around this rationale (assuming that Yee says that pellucidly, which we don't think it does at all). What is the difference between an owner saying "keep out" and barring the door and having the law force the door open, versus the law restraining an owner from saying to someone who is no longer invited to "get out?" Yeah, the owners here voluntarily invited tenants to occupy their properties, but occupancy was subject to whatever terms the owners and the tenants agreed to.

But the court was having none of that. You property owners willingly put your units into the rental market -- oops, sorry, the "regulated housing market," slip op. at 9 -- so this is on you for not simply keeping your gates closed. Shame on owners for offering your properties for rent!

To begin, no plaintiff alleges that the RSL forces them to place their properties into the regulated housing market, and it is well-settled that once an owner “decides to rent his land to tenants, the government . . . may require the landowner to accept tenants he does not like.” Yee, 503 U.S. at 526–28. See also Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 259–60 (1964).

Slip op. at 9.

Next, the court concluded that the statute doesn't deprive the owners permanently of the right to exclude, "[b]ecause, as pled, landlords may yet succeed in evicting current tenants, we cannot say that the RSL “compel[s] a landlord over objection to rent his property or to refrain in perpetuity from terminating a tenancy.” Yee, 503 U.S. at 528." Slip op. at 9.

Ripeness (Exhaustion)

Same story with the regulatory takings claim and pleading Penn Central. Before whacking the claim for a failure to plead, however, the court noted the claim was not ripe because the owners have not sought an exemption from the statute's effects under the "hardship" provision. Slip op. at 12. "[T]he as-applied challengers have not sought exemptions. Instead, they speculate that the hardship provisions offer economic relief 'in theory' but practically 'result in few applications . . . being granted.' Speculation of this sort is insufficient under Pakdel." Slip op. at 13.

Yes, such "hardship exemptions" or "variances" are seemingly built into every land regulation scheme out there, and are increasingly becoming the tail that wags the dog: they rarely if ever get granted (and when they do, they are the product of behind-the-scenes decisionmaking that virtually overrule the legislatively-adopted regulation, and operate mostly as a ripeness pressure valve allowing government to avoid having to face the takings music that is the natural consequence of the blanket regulatory ban or restriction).

But who knows, the State just might grant some relief, right Second Circuit?

Penn Central

Back to the Penn Central claim. Slip op. at 13 ("That said, even if the as-applied challengers’ regulatory takings claims were ripe, these claims would nevertheless fail on the merits."). The court seems to analyze the merits of the claims, rather than just stick to whether the Penn Central factors were adequately pleaded. For example, check out this sleight-of-word: "Furthermore, the as-applied challengers have not plausibly alleged that the economic impact factor tilts in their favor." Slip op. at 15.

But isn't all that is required is an allegation that the regulations have had an economic impact on the owners (with it being up to the jury or fact-finder to determine whether this impact, when measured against the other factors, "goes too far" and looks like it is having an effect similar to an eminent domain seizure? Here, the plaintiffs alleged a decrease in value between 20 and 40 percent, and that seems like it should have been enough. But here we have the court determining as a matter of law that this can never be enough, which to us is an usurpation of the right to have a jury make this determination.

Next, the investment-backed expectations factor (which, in itself, invites the kind of bizarre analysis the court engaged in, focusing on whether the property owners here could and should have predicted future restrictions). One answer might be that of course, having their properties in New York, they should have expected to get nailed. And strangely, that is just what the court concluded:

We agree with the district court and hold that any investor could reasonably expect limits on the use of rental properties, such as those as provided by the RSL.

Slip op. at 17. Go ahead, read the rest of pages 17 and 18, where the court bootstraps the very existence of the RSL to conclude that owners should just know that more is coming. You frogs in the slowly boiling water: it's your own damn fault for not getting out of the pot. 

The opinion ends on a low note, the inevitable butchering of Penn Central's character inquiry. The RSL is a valid police power regulation, the court concludes, and therefore the character factor is in the government's favor. That analysis properly belongs in the following section (pages 21-23) where the court concludes that the rent control statute is a valid exercise of police power.

More on the opinion:

• Federal Appeals Court Rejects Rent Control Challenge, Says Government Has Wide Powers To Regulate Land Use (Reason)
• NYC Rent Stabilization Rules Beat Challenges by Landlords (Bloomberg Law)

Stay tuned there will be more.

------------------------------------
*We know the rule in legal writing is never to use "clear" or "clearly," but if you substitute "pellucid," you are just making it worse, not better.

74 Pinehurst LLC v. New York, No. 21-467(L) (2d Cir. Feb 6, 2023)

"Emerging Issues In Property Rights" - Wednesday, February 8, 2023, 3-4pm ET (Free!)

Join our Pacific Legal Foundation colleagues Jon Houghton, Daniel Woislaw, Kady Valois, and Sam Spiegelman (moderating) tomorrow, Wednesday, February 8, 2023, at 3:00 - 4:00 p.m. ET for a free webinar, "Emerging Issues in Property Rights."

Here's the agenda:

Protecting private property rights has been at the heart of PLF’s work since our founding in 1973. Our view, and that of the American Founders, is that property rights are foundational to all other constitutional rights.

Our relentless defense of property rights has secured many precedented victories, including 12 property rights wins at the U.S. Supreme Court—and counting.

Unfortunately, even today, the need for property rights champions remains critical.

Government officials too often relegate property rights to second-class status among Americans’ constitutional rights—cloaking their assaults in erroneous assertions of environmental protection or cleverly constructed land use restrictions.

To learn more about property rights’ legal landscape in 2023, join us for part two of our four-part webinar series, Emerging Issues in Property Rights. Our panel of PLF attorneys will preview the road ahead for property rights and strategies to restore these fundamental rights to their rightful constitutional status.

Join us, and register here (free!).

Hawaii 5-80: Land Use Law At The University Of Hawaii

Starting in January, we'll be teaching the venerated, and oh-so-important Land Use course (Law 580) at the University of Hawaii's Law School.

We're at least temporarily stepping into some mighty big slippers (this is Hawaii, so we don't always wear shoes), as this is the course that our mentor Professor David Callies taught for decades. And is there a better venue in which to teach and study land use law and regulation, and its limits? After all, Hawaii may be the most heavily-regulated land on the planet, and is a focal point for every issue you can think of, from zoning to environmental restrictions to takings to public trust to subdivision to admin law to ... well, you get the drift.

We'll cover those topics, as well as the fundamentals. And we have a few surprises up our sleeve - some impressive guest lecturers, explorations of dirt law careers, and maybe a field trip or two. We'll bring you the highlights here, as they happen.

Is there a bit of pressure on us to get it right? You bet. But are we looking forward to it (not just an opportunity to head back to the 808, but because this is a great subject)? You bet.

Here's The Program For The 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Feb 1-4, 2023, Austin

Here it is, the official agenda and program for the 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, February 2-4, 2023 (with a special event the evening of Wednesday, February 1, 2023 to entice you to arrive early).

Here's the brochure with the complete agenda, schedule, and faculty listing. But to tempt you, here are some of the highlights of the program:

• Everything Old is New Again: Why Today’s Practitioners Need to Understand the Original Meaning of the Takings and Just Compensation Clauses

• Private Utility Takeovers – Lessons From a 67 Day Trial

• Valuation Issues When Billboards and Signs are Condemned

• Setting Client Expectations and Identifying Red Flags

• Developing Property Right Issues in Texas - Questions and Answers from the Bench: A View From the Bench (with Texas Supreme Court Justice Jimmy Blacklock)

• Eminent Domain and Regulatory Takings Updates: Important Decisions You Need to Know

• Ethics: Building Your Practice by Mentoring the Next Generation of Eminent Domain Lawyers

• ...and much more!

To register, go here.

Register now and hold your space. In the past several years, we have sold out due to the conference room capacity, and the conference hotel block. So don't delay. 

Looking forward to seeing everyone in Austin for the 40th edition of the Conference.

Program Brochure, 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Austin, Texas, Feb 1-...

Video: "The Future of Private Property Regulation in America"

Check it out: our Pacific Legal Foundation colleagues Jim Burling, Jon Houghton, and Jeff McCoy, along with Jeremy Hopkins (Cranfill & Sumner, North Carolina), share with us the latest on property rights, Sackett, takings, the future of Penn Central, and the upcoming SCOTUS arguments in Wilkins v. United States (is the Federal Quiet Title's statute of limitations jurisdictional?).

Don't miss it.

County: We're Short Of Housing, So Let's Do Rent Control! Court: Not So Fast.

Florida law makes it really difficult for municipalities to adopt rent controls. State statutes and the Florida Constitution erect all sorts of substantive and procedural hurdles that must be crossed. For example, a statute requires findings that any such measures are responding to an emergency, a "grave ... menace to the general public," and places the burden on the municipality to not just make findings, but back up those findings with facts, and show that rent control will actually "eliminate" the emergency. Single-family properties cannot be rent controlled. And any ordinance adopted by a municipality must be approved by the voters.

Facing what it concluded was a problem -- a shortage of 26,500 housing units and a population increase of 25% in the last decade - Orange County's County Commission voted, 3-2, to control rents. The measure limited the frequency and amount of rent increases.

After the measure was placed on the ballot for [today's] general election, the Realtors Association sued to declare the ordinance unconstitutional and to prevent the measure from being placed on the ballot. It sought an injunction, and even though the trial court concluded the Association had a substantial likelihood of winning on the merits, it declined to remove the measure from the ballot because even if invalid, a vote would allow the public to offer its opinion on rent control. Both parties appealed.

In Florida Ass'n of Realtors v. Orange County, No. 5D22-2277 (Oct. 27, 2022), the Florida District Court of Appeal agreed that the measure was likely to be illegal, but reversed the trial court's allowing it on the ballot. The court concluded that Orange County could not meet its burden to show that there is a housing emergency, nor its burden to prove that rent control would alleviate any such emergency. "Emergency" means a "sudden or unexpected" and temporary condition, and here, the housing shortage is the result of "historical structural issues" and not a surprise. Things like population growth, and longstanding housing shortages are not sudden. Moreover, the "County Attorney warned the County that these factors would be legally insufficient before it enacted the Ordinance." Slip op. at 18.

Even if the housing shortage qualified as an emergency, the County didn't prove that that it was "so grave as to constitute a serious menace to the general public." Slip op. at 19. To be a "menace," the threat must be a "grave threat or danger to the Orange County citizens as a whole." Slip op. at 20. "At most, the County cites to a low rental vacancy rate and low availability of affordable housing." Slip op. at 21. Yes, this affects renters in Orange County, but that isn't enough. It has to affect everyone.

Next, the court concluded that even if such conditions exist, the rent control measure would not address or remedy the problems. Not only would the measure not "eliminate" the problem as the statute requires, testimony at trial showed that it would have little effect, and even the County's consultant report conclude that rent control "may actually hurt rental conditions by 'imped[ing] the objective of speeding overall housing deliveries as well as creat[ing] a number of unintended consequences.'" Slip op. at 23.

"In sum, for this third and independent reason, the trial court correctly concluded that the Association satisfied its burden to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its challenge to the Ordinance's validity." Slip op. at 24.

The court of appeal also concluded the ballot summary was misleading: "[t]he summary is misleading not because of what it says, but because of what it does not say." Slip op. at 27. The summary stated:

Rent Stabilization Ordinance to
Limit Rent Increase for Certain
Residential Rental Units

Shall the Orange County Rent Stabilization Ordinance, which limits rent increases for certain residential rental unites in multifamily structures to the average annual increase in the Consumer Price Index, and requires the County to create a process for landlords to request an exception to the limitation on the rent increase based on an opportunity to receive a fair and reasonable return on investment, be approved for a period of one year?

The summary "only advises the voter about the amount of rent control, but not its frequency," even though the actual ordinance limits increases to once in a twelve-month period. Slip op. at 27. The summary thus makes the measure appear less extensive than it actually is.

Finally, the court of appeal disagreed with the trial court's refusal to enjoin the election and keep the issue from the voters:

No public interest can be served by allowing the potential enforcement of a rent control ordinance that fails to meet the facial requirements of section 125.0103, and Article 8, section 1 of the Florida Constitution. We recognize that a local government's aim to enact legislation to address a complex, multifaceted issue is noble, and citizens might believe that rent control is a harmless was to accomplish that aim. But as we stated at the outset of this opinion, the power of local government is limited, and a critical limitation on this power is the Florida Constitution.

Similarly, no public interest can be served by having the electorate vote on a misleading ballot measure.

Slip op. at 32-33.

Fla. Ass'n of Realtors v. Orange County, No. 5D22-2277 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2022)

Oklahoma: The "Taking" Occurs When Govt Changes Its Use Of A Previously-Granted Easement

Even though the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision in Snow v. Town of Calumet, No. 119,758 (June 21, 2022) is short, we think it is worth reading because is clarifies who can bring an inverse claim, and what exactly do these claims allege.

In 1978, the Snows' predecessor-in-title granted the Town an easement to maintain sewer lines. The easement was temporary and expired 6 months after the Snows purchased the property in 2010. But after the temporary easement expired, the Town didn't cease its use of the property. Flash forward 7 more years, and the Town asked the Snows to grant it perpetual easements for its continued use. The Snows asked for compensation, but the Town said no.

Next up, the Snows' trespass and inverse lawsuit in state court, with the Town counterclaiming with a quiet title claim asserting it had acquired a perpetual easement by prescription. Cross motions for summary judgment flew: the Snows won the prescription claim (the prescription period is 15 years in Oklahoma), while the Town won the trespass and inverse claim, the latter dismissed because the Snows lacked standing (the claim, the court concluded, belonged to the former owners who had consented to the Town's invasion of the property).

The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the Snows had standing to bring an inverse claim. While acknowledging the "general rule" that "the right of inverse condemnation belongs to the owner at the time of the taking," slip op. at 4, the court held the general rule wasn't applicable here because the inverse claim wasn't based on the original physical incursion (which was indeed permissive), but on the Town's continued use of the Snow land even after that permission expired. See slip op. at 5 ("When the Town sought perpetual easements from the Snows for the continued use and maintenance of the sewer lines more than seven years after the temporary easements expired, the Snows owned the property, giving them standing to allege an inverse condemnation claim.").

Takings claims are not limited to one-per-property, and "[m]ore than one taking can occur involving a single piece of property." Slip op. at 6. Thus, the fact that the Town had installed the sewer lines with the prior owners' permission didn't really tell us much about whether the Town's continuing use of the property after that permission expired was a taking. There's a difference, after all, between a temporary easement and a perpetual easement, and an owner is within her rights to tell third party users of her property that "you can use it for only a certain amount of time after which your possession becomes adverse to me."  

Reversed and remanded for trial.

We posted this one because it emphasizes a related point relating to Co-19 eviction moratoria. Most of the takings challenges have gone nowhere due to the courts seeing the property right being invaded by a tenant remaining past the expiration of the owner's permission as the right to exclude. Ah ha, the courts exclaim, you landlords invited these now-nonpaying tenants to possess your properties, so you can't say that moratoria allowing them to remain rent-free has taken your right to exclude. For an example of that thinking, see here.

But we think the analysis should be more like the Oklahoma Supreme Court applied here. Yes, property owners may have initially invited tenants to possess and occupy their properties, but that permission was subject to two conditions: first, the continuing payment of rent; and second, the expiration of the original permission after a certain time (the expiration of the lease, for example). So it isn't so much the right to exclude that is being interfered with, but some other right (the right to recover property, the right to re-possess it, or maybe a "reverter"). 

Snow v. Town of Calumet, No. 119,748 (Ok. June 21, 2022)

Here's The Full Speaker And Topic List For The Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference (Sep 29-30, 2022)

By now, you know that the 19th Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference is set for September 29-30, 2022, at the William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia (register here - space is limited - fee ranges from free to $195 - a bargain!). And you know that our colleague Jim Burling is this year's B-K Prize winner.

But now you know who is speaking at the Conference, and the topics: here's the full agenda. The list of speakers is too long to list here but check out these topics:

• Panel 1: The Importance of Property Rights: A Tribute to James S. Burling
• Panel 2: Reshaping the Framework Protecting Property Under the Roberts Court (that's the panel we're speaking on)
  
• Roundtable: Emerging Issues in Takings and Property Rights Litigation
• Panel 3: Choosing A Property Regime
• Panel 4: Property Rights in Times of Scarcity and Crisis

Who can resist these subjects? Plan on joining join us in September.

2022 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference Speaker Panels

New Article: "Taking One for the Team: COVID-19 Eviction Moratoria as Regulatory Takings"

Check it out: a new article from the San Diego Law Review that's worth reading. Here's the Abstract:

This Comment explores potential Fifth Amendment challenges to COVID-19 eviction restrictions. Part II introduces California and federal COVID-19 eviction laws and lays out an organizational framework for analysis. Part III provides background on relevant regulatory takings jurisprudence. Part IV analyzes COVID-19 residential eviction laws under relevant regulatory takings tests. Part V considers judges’ potential impact on eviction moratorium challenges. Finally, Part VI proposes the solution that the Federal Government should pass legislation to provide direct rent relief for COVID-19-affected tenants.

Get the pdf here: "Taking One for the Team: COVID-19 Eviction Moratoria as Regulatory Takings," 59 San Diego L. Rev. 345 (2022).

Our take on Co-19 takings (not just eviction moratoria) here. And our thoughts on emergency response laws, generally.

Links From Last Week's Georgia Bar Association Eminent Domain Conference

Here are the links to the cases and other materials that we talked about last Friday at the Georgia Bar Association's annual Eminent Domain Conference. Our talk was entitled "It's the Chief Justice's Property World, We Just Live In It: National Trends in Takings, Property, & Eminent Domain," and was part of the Eminent Domain Section's (yes, the Georgia Bar has a Section entirely devoted to eminent domain!) annual conference on the topic. I was honored to have been asked to chat with this august and expert group of lawyers.

• Knick (opening back up federal courts to takings claims).
• Penn East (eminent domain and the 11th Amendment)
• Horne II (California raisins and physical invasions)
• Murr (the larger parcel issue, applied in regulatory takings cases).
• Winter (preliminary injunctions, diesel-electric submarines, and Pearl Harbor).
• The per curiam CDC eviction moratorium opinion.
• Koontz (money as property ... and exactions).
• Arkansas Game (physical invasions, again).
• Horne I (compensation isn't the only remedy for "takings").
• Brandt (easements, vel non)
• Help me help you!
• What to do when the condemnor doesn't promptly pay up.
• Abstention as the new Williamson County?
• The undivided fee rule ... constitutional?
• Whither Yee and the future of the physical occupation rule.

I look forward to future collaborations with our Georgia colleagues!

CA8: Yee v. Escondido Doesn't Save Eviction Moratorium From Takings Review

Here's the latest case challenging a pandemic-related eviction moratorium, this one from Minnesota and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

In Heights Apts, LLC v. Walz, No. 21-1278 (Apr. 5, 2022), the court reversed the district court's dismissal of a property owner's takings claims. The owner challenged the Minnesota governor's residential eviction moratorium and later extensions. Like a lot of these things, the Minnesota version was not a rent "holiday" (tenants were still, technically speaking, on the hook for the rent, and there were several limited exceptions under which the property owner could evict). But for the most part, the Minnesota measure, like a lot of these things, effectively left property owners holding the economic bag (good luck collecting thousands in back rent), and turned their units into public pandemic housing. 

The owner's complaint raised Contract Clause, Petition Clause, and Takings claims.

Before we get to the good stuff (takings), a short word about the Contracts and Petition claims. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the Contracts claim, concluding that "[a] cognizable Contract Clause claim requires a showing of a substantial impairment in a contractual relationship that is not reasonably tailored to advance a significant and legitimate public purpose." Slip op. at 15. "Given the breadth and impact of the EOs on landlords’ rights, as alleged by Heights, the complaint contains sufficient facts to meet the plausibility requirement for the second prong of its Contract Clause claim[.]" Id. But the Petition claim did not similarly survive because the property owner didn't plead that the damage remedy it sought was "somehow unique to its Petition Clause claim[.]" Slip op. at 16. 

With those out of the way, we get to the takings claims. The complaint alleged a physical taking, because the moratorium "forced landlords to accept the physical occupation of their property regardless of whether tenants provided compensation." Slip op. at 17. As in many other of these moratorium cases, relying on Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992), the state argued that the moratorium only restricted an owner's ability to evict (you let 'em in, property owner; we're only telling you that you can't get 'em out).

The Eighth Circuit instead focused on Cedar Point Nursery, concluding that that case "controls here and Yee, which the Walz Defendants rely on, is distinguishable."

The rent controls in Yee limited the amount of rent that could be charged and neither deprived landlords of their right to evict nor compelled landlords to continue leasing the property past the leases’ termination. 503 U.S. at 527–28. The landlords in Yee sought to exclude future or incoming tenants rather than existing tenants. Id. at 530–31. Here, the EOs forbade the nonrenewal and termination of ongoing leases, even after they had been materially violated, unless the tenants seriously endangered the safety of others or damaged property significantly. See 307, 712, 2103 & 3151 LLC v. City of Minneapolis, 27 F.4th 1377, No. 20-3493, slip op. at *3 (8th Cir. Mar. 14, 2022) (noting “an ordinance that would require landlords to rent to individuals they would otherwise reject might be a physical-invasion taking”).

Slip op. at 17-18. The complaint here alleged that the moratoria had made each lease "indefinite," and that was enough for the court to conclude that the complaint sufficiently alleged a physical taking.

The complaint also alleged a non-physical (regulatory) takings claim. The court first rejected the government's "notice" defense (the property owners "closed on the properties shortly after the first EO was signed"). Nope, the court concluded, the timing of the acquisition was "immaterial to our analysis," because this was too narrow a view of the property allegedly taken. Here, the complaint alleged that the moratoria "deprived it of the economic and beneficial use and decision-making related to its property and investments." Slip op. at 18. It wasn't just the value of the property, or the lost income that was alleged to have been taken. "here, since the EO's affected the least terms of every residential unit (paying or non-paying), the allegedly taken property consists of all of Heights' residential rental property." Slip op. at 18-19.

Looking at Penn Central, the court concluded that the complaint adequately pleaded the three factors. The most interesting was the court's treatment of the "character" factor, which the opinion calls "the nature of the regulation." Slip op. at 19. This perked up our ears, because it looked like the court was going to go down the valid-police-power-cannot-be-a-taking path, an analysis we've harshly criticized.

We're not quite sure whether the court went down that road (because it cited to a case in which the Supreme Court held that if a "regulation's effects are so publicly beneficial," then it cannot be a taking), but eventually distinguished that case and concluded that the complaint pleaded that the moratoria was a benefit only to a narrow class of the public. Slip op. at 19 ("Heights asserts the EOs are not in this category because, in comparison to the legislation discussed in Connolly, the EOs were not as broadly beneficial, and they improperly imposed the public cost of fighting homelessness on a subset of the population: rental property owners."). The court concluded that the complaint therefore adequately pleaded the "character" prong.

While we remain skittish of this approach, all's well that ends well, we suppose, because the court concluded, that "[c]onsidering the Supreme Court’s recent pronouncement regarding the now-defunct CDC eviction moratorium, we are unconvinced that as a matter of law the EOs are permissible non-compensable takings." Slip op. at 20.

Now that an overbroad application of Yee is off the table, but an overbroad view of Penn Central's "character" factor is in play, let's see what the district court does with this on remand.

Heights Apartments, LLC v. Walz, No. 21-1278 (8th Cir. Apr. 5, 2022)

CA8: Ordinance Making It Really Really Hard To Reject Tenants Isn't A Physical Taking

Check out the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's opinion in 301, 712, 2103 and 3141 LLC v. City of Minneapolis, No. 20-3493 (Mar. 14, 2022), in which the court held that a Minneapolis ordinance prohibiting property owners from rejecting a prospective tenant because of the applicant's criminal, credit, or rental history isn't a taking.

The challenged ordinance "requires landlords to evaluate applicants for rental housing by either (1) 'inclusive screening criteria' or (2) 'individualized assessment.'" Slip op. at 2. That's a roundabout way of saying that a property owner cannot reject an applicant for their criminal or credit background, unless the owner first considers other "supplemental evidence" to justify why the applicant should become a tenant in spite of these problems, and notifies the tenant why this evidence isn't enough to outweigh the problems. 

The court first rejected the owners' claim that the ordinance allows third parties whom the owners don't want in their properties to physically occupy their spaces. Relying on Yee, the court concluded that the ordinance doesn't require owners to allow people to occupy their property whom the owner doesn't want there. Wait, you say, doesn't the ordinance prohibit the owner from making that call? Well, not quite according to the Eighth Circuit: yes, the owner cannot use the applicant's sketchy credentials alone as a reason to deny a tenancy, but may still deny an applicant if, after reviewing the "supplemental [mitigating] evidence" submitted by the applicant, the owner still thinks s/he doesn't want the person as their tenant. Thus, the court concluded, this isn't some kind of compelled occupation:

True, an ordinance that would require landlords to rent to individuals they would otherwise reject might be a physical-invasion taking. Regardless, the Ordinance here has an “individualized assessment” option that allows landlords to reject individuals due to undesirable criminal, credit, rental, and other history so long as they comply with the Ordinance’s procedural requirements (including considering supplemental evidence and providing a written explanation of rejection). Due to the individualized assessment option, the Ordinance is a restriction on the landlords’ ability to use their property, not a physical-invasion taking.

Slip op. at 7.

Come on, man, argued the landlords, that "individualized assessment" option isn't really an option at all, because it is really difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to go through that process. The court considered that option under Penn Central, concluding that there was no taking because the property owners didn't introduce sufficient evidence to support any of the three factors. Slip op. at 9 ("None of the Penn Central factors support a taking in this case.").

And finally, the court also rejected a substantive due process claim, concluding that that the owners here do not have a fundamental property right. Say what? Didn't the owners assert a right to exclude, and didn't Cedar Point say that was about as fundamental a property right as you can assert? Here, the Eighth Circuit reached back to its takings analysis, and concluded that the ordinance here does not infringe any right to exclude, it merely adds layers of process that a property owner must work through before s/he excludes:

This court need not address whether the right to exclude is a fundamental right under substantive due process. As discussed, the Ordinance does not infringe any right to exclude others from entering and using landlords’ property. Rather, it requires them to follow tenant-screening procedures before excluding others, including considering supplemental materials and later providing a written explanation.

Slip op. at 10. And here, it isn't really a plain-old right to exclude that is the "property." Rather, the court defined the property as "the right to exclude others from property without following tenant-screening procedures like considering supplemental materials and providing a written explanation." Slip op. at 10 (emphasis added). Having narrowly defined the property right as the right to be free of regulation, the court concluded, "[t]he landlords have not shown that such a right is 'objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.'" Slip op. at 10 (citations omitted).

That very nearly seems like a sleight-of-law to us, because if you always define the property right being asserted as the right to be free of the challenged regulation, well, you are almost never going to find that the right is "deeply-rooted" and "traditional."

Having defined the right narrowly and thus not fundamental, the court applied rational basis review. Do we need to tell you what that meant here for the due process claim?

301, 712, 2103 and 3141 LLC v. City of Minneapolis, No. 20-3493 (8th Cir. Mar. 14, 2022)

Wash App: No Taking Of Right To Exclude Because Eviction Moratorium Merely Lets Tenants Remain

Lately, we've been zeroing in on one of the lesser known parts of the Supreme Court's takings canon, Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992), where the Court concluded that a city ordinance that limited the amount a property owner could charge a tenant for rent was not a physical invasion taking.

In Yee, the Court held that the ordinance did not intrude on the owner's right to exclude because the owners had invited their tenants to intrude on their property when they let them become tenants. Yeah, that invitation and resulting intrusion was conditioned on the tenant paying each month a specific amount of rent and the ordinance effectively rewrote that agreement, but the plaintiff raised only a facial categorical takings claim (and thus the question of whether the city-mandated lower rent prohibited a fair return to the owner was an issue that the owners could challenge in as as-applied claim (employing a Lucas or more likely, a Penn Central theory)). And Yee was limited to a government-mandated reduction in rent, and the Court recognized that an owner could still recover possession if the tenant didn't pay at all).

We were never that down with the Court's rationale, because allowing someone to intrude conditioned on their payment of a certain amount of rent each month does become an infringement on the owner's right to exclude if the city prohibits them from doing so after the city uses the law to alter the agreed-upon conditions for the tenant remaining on the property. But hey, that's just us. 

But beyond that criticism, we have another that has little to do with the Supreme Court's rationale. Yee has always struck as as being leveraged to do a whole lot more than what the actual ruling in the case said.

The latest example of that is the Court of Appeals of Washington's opinion in Gonzales v. Inslee, No. 55915-3-II (Feb. 23, 2022), where the court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the State, rejecting several property owners' constitutional challenges to the State's residential eviction moratorium, including a takings challenge.

After Co-19 bore down, the governor declared an emergency (dig into those more here) and imposed a seemingly-endless continuation of a moratorium on property owners from evicting, and "prohibited landlords from treating unpaid rent resulting from COVID-19 as an enforceable debt, unless the landlord offered and the tenant refused a reasonable repayment plan." Slip op. at 4. Lawsuit ensued, including the above-mentioned takings claim.

Trial court: summary judgment. Court of appeals: affirmed.

You can read the stuff about whether the appeal was moot (no), whether the governor has the authority under Washington law to do what he did (yes), whether there was a problem with separation of powers (no), or a denial of the right to court access (no) on your own. Naturally, we skipped ahead to the takings part (starting on page 20 of the slip opinion).

The plaintiffs alleged a physical invasion taking. The State interfered with their right to exclude their nonpaying tenants. And there, on page 23, the inevitable reliance on Yee.

As in Yee, the eviction moratorium did not require the appellants to submit to the physical occupation of their property. Instead, the appellants were the ones who invited their tenants to occupy their rental property. And unlike in Cedar Point Nursery, the moratorium did not require that the appellants allow third parties to enter and take access to their property. The proclamations merely operated to “regulate [appellants’] use of their land by regulating the relationship between landlord and tenant.” Yee, 503 U.S. at 528. Therefore, we conclude that the eviction moratorium did not constitute a physical per se taking.

Slip op. at 23. No interference with the right to exclude, so no taking.

In other words, if you let someone on your property subject to agreed-upon conditions (I'll let you stay as long as you pay rent), the government may fundamentally rewrite those conditions (you can stay even if you are not paying rent) and it has not, according to this court and others, interfered with your right to exclude them. That not only seems wrong, but not something that even the actual rationale of Yee would support. 

Let's see where this goes.

Gonzales v. Inslee, No. 55915-3-II (Wash. App. Feb. 23, 2022)

2022 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain And Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Scottsdale: You Should Have Been There!

After a two-year absence in which we went remote, in the last week of last month (our usual spot on the calendar, between the playoffs and Super Bowl), we once again met in-person for the American Law Institute-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference.

Approximately 200 lawyers, judges, legal scholars, appraisers, law students, right-of-way agents, relocation experts, property owners, and other related professionals gathered in-person--yes, in-person--at the Scottsdale (Arizona) Resort at McCormick Ranch, to get reacquainted, learn stuff, and renew ties last made in-person in Nashville in 2020. In addition to the live attendance, we also welcomed about 50 remote colleagues, who joined the live webstream.

This was the 39th edition of the Conference, one of the most-established and successful conferences in the ALI-CLE stable of programs.

To those who joined us - thank you. This conference reminded us of why this program is so successful, and why we all return year-after-year.

To those of you who didn't (or couldn't) join us, here's what you missed. You need to remedy that, and come join us next year...

Our 2022 Proof of Life Photo.

Every year, as we open the program, I take to the lectern for what I call my "proof of life" photo. Our Conference ends up in some really fun, exciting places. Nashville. Palm Springs. San Diego. Austin. San Francisco. Charleston. And I want to prove to the folks back in the office that yes, we really are in the room, learning stuff. And not out enjoying all that our venues have to offer (we save that for after-hours).

In this photo, we're in the room, spread out (the Resort put us in its massive ballroom, so we had room to spare).

Thank you to our sponsors. Without your generosity, the Conference would not be as good as it is.

Lawprof Karen Bradshaw presented our keynote address on Friday, "Do Animals Have Property Rights?" with more from her recent book "Wildlife as Property Owners." Her talk was followed by a book signing, too. Interesting stuff for sure.

Our main room was nicely filled for every program. A real testament to the subjects discussed, and the quality of the faculty.

The program includes a mix of practice and substantive topics. Here, Virginia's Steve Clarke in one of the breakout rooms (also nicely filled), presenting on "Federal Court and the Daubert Challenge – How To Prepare."

But it wasn't all eminent domain, property, and CLE credits. Naturally, with the beautiful Arizona winter weather, we found time to get out-of-doors and do things. Like this intra-firm golf tournament.

Which firm prevailed? You'll have to ask them who has the bragging rights.

What was especially nice was that our sponsor tables and the ALI-CLE registration table could be outside of the presentation rooms. Love that AZ weather.

New Jersey's Tony Della Pelle and Connecticut's Dwight Merriam on "COVID-19 Takings."

Our faculty includes not only lawyers and law professors. We also have other industry professionals come and present. Here, Washington's Martyn Daniel, Texas' Kristen Bennett, and (lawyer) Alan Ackerman from Michigan speaking about "Maximizing Relocation Benefits: Understanding the Law and Regulations to Ensure Fairness."

Ah, ethics. A tough subject to cover. Especially at 8am. But Georgia's Ivy Cadle (with the obligatory "go dawgs!"), Michigan's Darius Dynkowski, and (off-screen) Virginia's Kelly Sheeran and Texas' Justin Hodge filled the room with "Ethics Jeopardy! Live."

Yeah, Justin really did go for the end zone for his role as Ethics Jeopardy! host.

We understood the situation. Our faculty, staff, and attendees came to Arizona from around the nation. Some places have opened up, others are still getting there. We minimized any risks. Spread out in a huge room, and everyone was pretty cool with the modest requirements from ALI-CLE. What was especially good was that nearly every event but the actual programming were outside. 

Another featured panel was on the Supreme Court's big decision in Cedar Point Nursery. We brought together three expert perspectives on the case and what it means for the future. "Did the Supreme Court Signal a New Direction for Property Rights in Cedar Point Nursery?" featured California's Joshua Thompson (prevailing counsel in the case), U. Virginia lawprof Julia Mahoney, and (off-camera, since he remoted in) Maryland's Matthew Littleton, who filed a government-side amicus brief in the case.

Also pictured: the moderator, some guy who writes a blog.

Colorado's Katie Gray and Nebraska's Bill Blake on "Project Abandonment: How to Position Your Client for the Fallout When Projects Don't Get Built." Really useful.

Tag swag (aka badge flair) courtesy of our Platinum sponsor.

Our two fave tags.

Outdoors at night - really nice under the lights by the fire, after a long day of CLE programming.

Hawaii's Mark Murakami teamed with Wisconsin's Smitha Chintamaneni for "Why Jurisdictional Offers Must Include an Assessment of Severance Damages."

Even our final programs each day attracted a substantial crowd, often tough to do after long days of sitting in class. A testament to the strength of the faculty and the topics. Here's the audience for "Defending the Appraisal in the Courtroom - The Insider's View."

We put speakers with competing views on these panels, to get the blood pumping and keep everyone's attention.

Saturday morning, after two full days of (great) programming, is still a tough spot for a speaker, because they have to keep us focused, and interested.

That's why we always reserve these spots for two old hands, who will keep us zeroed in. Above is California's Jim Burling, with a tour-de-force solo hour on "What Are the Top 20 Ways to Increase the Cost of Housing? The Answer May Surprise You!"

Below, Michael Berger (looking a bit like Big Brother, admittedly), who remoted in from California with his annual "Regulatory Takings Update."

Feral cats and property rights had us smiling (ask Michael about what this refers to).

Michael Berger is Watching You.

A group photo of the William and Mary Law School contingent at the Conference (minus two other WM Law colleagues who could not be there for the photo). Recent and long-time alumni, current law students, a law prof, and (fourth from left) Jim Burling who later this year will be awarded WM Law's Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize at the B-K Conference in September 2022.

A pretty good showing for the alma mater.

There was a whole lot of podcasting going on. Thanks, Infrastructure Junkies and Eminent Domain Podcast. Can't wait for the episodes you recorded.

Again, thank you sponsors!

What about next year? Usually, on the last day of a Conference, we announce the dates and the venue for the following year. This year, due to some slowdowns, ALI-CLE couldn't quite get all the requirements in place to make a formal, official announcement. As soon as we know the venue, we'll go loud here.

As for the date: same date as usual - last week of January or first week of February, depending on the football schedule (which we're trying to avoid).

Stay tuned.

 

CA2: NYC's Eviction Moratorium May Have A Contracts Clause Problem

There's not a lot of direct takings love in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's opinion in Melendez v. City of New York, No. 20-4238 (Oct. 28, 2021), but there's enough there that you might want to read it anyway.

Because the opinion resurrected the plaintiffs' Contracts Clause claim. You heard that right, their Contracts Clause claim. The plaintiffs asserted that New York City's ordinance that prohibiting "threatening" a tenant due to their Co-19 status violated free speech and due process rights, and the city's ordinance voiding personal guarantees for commercial leases impaired their lease contracts. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim, concluding that the guaranty ordinance served a legitimate public purpose and did not favor any class.

The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of the free speech and due process claims, but also concluded that the complaint alleged a plausible Contracts Clause claim because an ordinance that renders unenforceable personal guaranties for rent obligations could result in a "substantial" impairment of that contract. The opinion is long on this (and other) points -- it is a whopping 109 pages, with 83 (83!) footnotes, with a 37-page dissent -- but we recommend you try and slog through it. Any time a court even hints that a Contracts Clause claim could be successful, we pay attention.

And what of the takings crumbs? They are there, but you have to hunt. The most interesting is footnote 81 on page 106. In noting that Contracts Clause analysis turns in part on compensation (but does not require it), the court contrasted takings analysis which naturally requires compensation if there's been a taking:

Compensation is a factor in Contracts Clause analysis; it is a requirement under the Takings Clause. See generally Apartment Ass’n of L.A. Cnty. v. City of Los Angeles, 10 F.4th at 915 (acknowledging that reasonable rent has been a “relevant consideration” in Contracts Clause challenges to eviction moratoria, but not a “constitutional floor”). While plaintiffs have not here pleaded a Takings Clause claim, nothing in this opinion is intended to preclude the parties or the district court from considering how these two constitutional protections might overlap in the circumstances of this case.

Slip op. at 106 n.81.

Has the Second Circuit picked up the Supreme Court's big hint in the recent CDC moratorium case about takings? Enquiring minds want to know!

Melendez v. City of New York, No. 20-4238 (2d Cir. Oct. 28, 2021)