GHP Management Corp. v. City of Los Angeles (No. 24-435)
Summary
This document is Justice Thomas's dissent from the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in GHP Management Corp. v. City of Los Angeles. The case concerns the City of Los Angeles's eviction moratorium enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic, which prevented landlords from evicting tenants for COVID-related nonpayment of rent. GHP Management Corp., representing landlords, argued that the moratorium constituted a per se physical taking in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Expected Effects
The denial of certiorari leaves in place a circuit split regarding whether eviction moratoria constitute physical takings. This means that the legal standard for such moratoria remains inconsistent across different federal circuits. Landlords in the Ninth Circuit (which includes California) will continue to be subject to eviction moratoria without compensation, while those in the Eighth and Federal Circuits may have grounds to claim a taking.
Potential Benefits
- Potentially protects tenants from eviction during emergencies.
- Allows municipalities flexibility to respond to crises.
- Upholds existing Ninth Circuit precedent.
- May prevent a flood of eviction cases during a pandemic or similar emergency.
- Could be seen as promoting social stability during times of crisis.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- May infringe on landlords' property rights, specifically the right to exclude.
- Could discourage investment in rental properties.
- Creates uncertainty for landlords regarding their ability to manage their properties.
- Exacerbates existing tensions between landlords and tenants.
- May lead to deferred maintenance and reduced housing quality if landlords are unable to collect rent.
Constitutional Alignment
Justice Thomas argues that the eviction moratorium may violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits taking private property for public use without just compensation. He cites Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021) to support the argument that preventing landlords from evicting tenants infringes on their right to exclude, a fundamental element of property ownership. The dissent also distinguishes Yee v. Escondido (1992), arguing that the statute in that case did not constitute an outright prohibition on evictions for nonpayment of rent.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).