The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a bid by landlord groups challenging New York City’s rent stabilization laws, which cap rent hikes and limit evictions. The justices rejected appeals by property owners who argued that the city’s price and eviction controls violate the Fifth Amendment’s “takings clause,” which prohibits the government from seizing property without providing compensation.
New York City implemented its rent stabilization system in 1969 to address an affordable housing shortage. This law, enacted by the New York state legislature and enforced by the city, restricts rent increases and limits property owners’ authority to remove tenants. It applies to nearly one million apartments in buildings constructed before 1974 with at least six units, covering about half of all rentals in the city.
Proponents of these housing measures argue that they reduce tenant dislocation, prevent homelessness, and enable residents to maintain long-term homes in their neighborhoods. Selendy Gay, a law firm representing parties defending the law, praised the court’s decision. In a statement, they emphasized their commitment to preserving rent stabilization protections. “Since 1969, New York’s rent stabilization law has provided affordable housing for millions of New Yorkers, preventing displacement and combating homelessness. We will continue to challenge efforts that threaten these well-established protections,” the statement read.
In 2019, New York amended the law to expand tenant protections, prompting landlords and trade associations to file legal challenges. A group led by G-Max Management criticized the updated law, claiming it converted a temporary rent regulation system into a permanent “expropriation” of private property without proper compensation, all in the name of affordable housing.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled against these challenges in March, leading to appeals to the Supreme Court. Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed interest in hearing the cases, but the court ultimately declined to review them.
Landlords arguing against rent stabilization laws cite support from a 2021 Supreme Court decision. In that case, the justices ruled that a California regulation allowing union organizers to access agricultural properties without the owner’s consent constituted an unconstitutional government taking of private property. However, the Supreme Court in February also refused to hear a similar challenge to New York City’s rent stabilization laws.
