Supreme Court turns down challenge to N.Y. rent control with implications for California
www.latimes.com
Justices decline to hear landlords' claim that rent controls in New York City and potentially beyond violate the Constitution's ban on government taking of private property.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a major property-rights challenge to rent control laws in New York City and elsewhere that give tenants a right to stay for many years in an apartment with a below-market cost.

A group of New York landlords had sued, contending the combination of rent regulation and long-term occupancy violated the Constitution’s ban on the taking of private property for public use.

The justices had considered the appeal since late September. Only Justice Clarence Thomas issued a partial dissent.

  • EndOfLine@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    2 years ago

    … violated the Constitution’s ban on taking of private property for public use.

    Do they think that regulating the usage of private property is the same as having it taken away? Was their argument really “As long as it’s on my property, I should be able to do whatever I want, whenever I want, to whomever I want. Anything else is a violation of my rights!”