SCOTUS: L.A.'s COVID Eviction Ban Not a 5th Amendment Taking

The Supreme Court-- under both liberal and conservative control over the
years-- has historically been horrible with regard to the Takings Clause in
the 5th Amendment. It's basically lets the government get away with almost
anything. From the appalling Kelo decision to this (both under conservative
Courts, no less), it's like they're trying to nullify the clause altogether.

How is it not a taking for the city to make it illegal for the owners of
private property to evict a tenant who refuses to pay rent? How is that not
the city essentially turning private property into public housing? As far as I
can tell, that's a bright-line example of a taking under the 5th Amendment,
but apparently not to the be-robed justices on the Court, peace be upon them.

-------------------------------------------------

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-06-30/supreme-court-turns-down-la-landlords-claim-on-covid-evictions-ban

With two conservatives in dissent, the Supreme Court on Monday turned down a
property-rights claim from Los Angeles landlords who say they lost millions
from unpaid rent during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency.

Without comment, the justices said they would not hear an appeal from a
coalition of apartment owners who said they rent over 4,800 units in luxury
apartment communities to predominantly high-income tenants. They sued the city
seeking $20 million in damages from tenants who did not pay their rent during
the pandemic emergency.

They contended that the city's strict limits on evictions during that time had
the effect of taking their private property in violation of the Constitution.
In the past, the Court has repeatedly turned down claims that rent control
laws are unconstitutional, even though they limit how much landlords can
collect in rent.

But the L.A. landlords said their claim was different because the city had in
effect taken use of their property, at least for a time. They cited the 5th
Amendment's Takings Clause that says "private property [shall not] be taken
for public use without just compensation".

"In March 2020, the city of Los Angeles adopted one of the most onerous
eviction moratoria in the country, stripping property owners ... of their
right to exclude non-paying tenants," they told the Court in GHP Management
Corporation vs. City of Los Angeles. "The city pressed private property into
public service, foisting the cost of its coronavirus response onto housing
providers. By August 2021, when [they] sued the City seeking just compensation
for that physical taking, back rents owed by their unremovable tenants had
ballooned to over $20 million."

A federal judge in Los Angeles and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a
3-0 decision dismissed the landlords' suit. Those judges cited the decades of
precedent that allowed the regulation of property. The Supreme Court had
considered the appeal since February, but only Justices Thomas and Gorsuch
voted to hear the case.

"I would grant review of the question whether a policy barring landlords from
evicting tenants for the non-payment of rent effects a physical taking under
the Taking Clause," Thomas said. "This case meets all of our usual criteria.
... The Court nevertheless denies certiorari, leaving in place confusion on a
significant issue, and leaving petitioners without a chance to obtain the
relief to which they are likely entitled."

In February, the city attorney's office urged the Court to turn down the
appeal.

"As a once-in-a-century pandemic shuttered its businesses and schools, the
city of Los Angeles employed temporary, emergency measures to protect
residential renters against eviction," they wrote. The measure protected only
those who could "prove COVID-19 related economic hardship and it did not
excuse any rent debt that an affected tenant accrued."

The city argued that the landlords are seeking a "radical departure from
precedent" in the area of property regulation. "If a government takes
property, it must pay for it. For more than a century, though, this Court has
recognized that governments do not appropriate property rights solely by
virtue of regulating them."

The city said the COVID emergency and the restriction on evictions ended in
January 2023.

In reply, lawyers for the landlords said bans on evictions are becoming the
"new normal". They cited a Los Angeles County measure precluding evictions for
non-paying tenants purportedly affected by the recent wildfires, and a new
measure by the City of Los Angeles imposing an eviction moratorium on those
affected by federal immigration enforcement measures.