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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:

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.

Obviously I agree with you here (even though I disagree with you on
Kelo). Were there any important decisions during the Lochner era? At that
time, I could see the Court talking about unconstitutional interference
with the right to contract freely.

Was there something impure about this case? Is there another case moving through appeals that might be more generic? Or will there have to be a
circuit split to force the Court to accept such a case?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Jul 21, 2025 at 12:38:34 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]>
wrote:

BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:

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.

Obviously I agree with you here (even though I disagree with you on
Kelo). Were there any important decisions during the Lochner era? At that time, I could see the Court talking about unconstitutional interference
with the right to contract freely.

Was there something impure about this case? Is there another case moving through appeals that might be more generic? Or will there have to be a circuit split to force the Court to accept such a case?

I think they Court just liked the ruling in the lower courts and didn't want
to bother.

I asked above how is this not the city essentially turning private property into public housing, but I realized it's wore than that. With public housing, the city has to bear the costs of maintaining the property. Here the landlord still has to do all that stuff at his own expense, plus pay things like property tax, all while having people living in his building who have been given legal dispensation to withhold rent.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:

Jul 21, 2025 at 12:38:34 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]>:

BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:

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.

Obviously I agree with you here (even though I disagree with you on
Kelo). Were there any important decisions during the Lochner era? At that >>time, I could see the Court talking about unconstitutional interference >>with the right to contract freely.

Was there something impure about this case? Is there another case moving >>through appeals that might be more generic? Or will there have to be a >>circuit split to force the Court to accept such a case?

I think they Court just liked the ruling in the lower courts and didn't want >to bother.

I asked above how is this not the city essentially turning private property >into public housing, but I realized it's wore than that. With public housing, >the city has to bear the costs of maintaining the property. Here the landlord >still has to do all that stuff at his own expense, plus pay things like >property tax, all while having people living in his building who have been >given legal dispensation to withhold rent.

C'mon, man. This is gubmint. The people do not have a constitutional
right to gubmint that isn't ineffective, arbitrary, and capricious.

Where do you think you live? In the land of the free and the home of the
brave?

Since Trump fired and replaced everybody in the Civil Rights Division of
the Justice Department, perhaps those affected could file a Title VI
complaint and get recognized as a protected class.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Jul 23, 2025 at 12:03:59 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]>
wrote:

BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:

Jul 21, 2025 at 12:38:34 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]>:

BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:

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.

Obviously I agree with you here (even though I disagree with you on
Kelo). Were there any important decisions during the Lochner era? At that >>> time, I could see the Court talking about unconstitutional interference
with the right to contract freely.

Was there something impure about this case? Is there another case moving >>> through appeals that might be more generic? Or will there have to be a
circuit split to force the Court to accept such a case?

I think they Court just liked the ruling in the lower courts and didn't want >> to bother.

I asked above how is this not the city essentially turning private property >> into public housing, but I realized it's wore than that. With public housing,
the city has to bear the costs of maintaining the property. Here the landlord
still has to do all that stuff at his own expense, plus pay things like
property tax, all while having people living in his building who have been >> given legal dispensation to withhold rent.

C'mon, man. This is gubmint. The people do not have a constitutional
right to gubmint that isn't ineffective, arbitrary, and capricious.

Where do you think you live? In the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Since Trump fired and replaced everybody in the Civil Rights Division of
the Justice Department, perhaps those affected could file a Title VI complaint and get recognized as a protected class.

Based on her previous work in private practice, I actually think Harmeet Dhillon, who Trump appointed to head the Civil Rights Division, would be amenable to taking on the communists who run Los Angeles and are using
people's private property as their personal playthings.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:

Jul 23, 2025 at 12:03:59 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]>:

BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:

Jul 21, 2025 at 12:38:34 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]>: >>>>BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:

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.

Obviously I agree with you here (even though I disagree with you on >>>>Kelo). Were there any important decisions during the Lochner era? At that >>>>time, I could see the Court talking about unconstitutional interference >>>>with the right to contract freely.

Was there something impure about this case? Is there another case moving >>>>through appeals that might be more generic? Or will there have to be a >>>>circuit split to force the Court to accept such a case?

I think they Court just liked the ruling in the lower courts and didn't >>>want to bother.

I asked above how is this not the city essentially turning private >>>property into public housing, but I realized it's wore than that. With >>>public housing, the city has to bear the costs of maintaining the >>>property. Here the landlord still has to do all that stuff at his own >>>expense, plus pay things like property tax, all while having people >>>living in his building who have been given legal dispensation to
withhold rent.

C'mon, man. This is gubmint. The people do not have a constitutional
right to gubmint that isn't ineffective, arbitrary, and capricious.

Where do you think you live? In the land of the free and the home of the >>brave?

Since Trump fired and replaced everybody in the Civil Rights Division of >>the Justice Department, perhaps those affected could file a Title VI >>complaint and get recognized as a protected class.

Based on her previous work in private practice, I actually think Harmeet >Dhillon, who Trump appointed to head the Civil Rights Division, would be >amenable to taking on the communists who run Los Angeles and are using >people's private property as their personal playthings.

I've looked at Title VI. It's really hard to use it to object to bad
policy as a matter of violatig civil rights.

But there is housig discriiniation taking; it may not be an equal
housing protection violation in federal law.

There are legitimate tenants out there who are quite capable of paying
their rent on a timely basis who simply cannot find housing they can
afford due to the housing shortage. These policies of preventing the
eviction of deadbeats tend to exaccerbate the housing shortage.

There's probably no way to hold local government accountable as a matter
of housing discrimination on that basis.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <105rbmu$dll3$[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:

BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:

I asked above how is this not the city essentially turning private property >>into public housing, but I realized it's wore than that. With public housing, >>the city has to bear the costs of maintaining the property. Here the landlord >>still has to do all that stuff at his own expense, plus pay things like >>property tax, all while having people living in his building who have been >>given legal dispensation to withhold rent.

C'mon, man. This is gubmint. The people do not have a constitutional
right to gubmint that isn't ineffective, arbitrary, and capricious.

Where do you think you live? In the land of the free and the home of the >brave?

Since Trump fired and replaced everybody in the Civil Rights Division of
the Justice Department

TROLL-O-METER

5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)