Supreme Court turns down claim from L.A. landlords over COVID evictions ban

[Dan H.]

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-06-30/supreme-co...

I feel the lawsuit would have more merit if it came from San Diego LLs.  Not only did the San Diego county board of supervisors ban evictions for non paying tenants, they banned evicting tenants for lease violations unless it was a health or safety concern.   Lease calls for no smoking but tenant can smoke in the unit.  Lease calls for no pets but tenants could bring in a dozen pets.   Lease calls for a maximum of br *2 + 1, but the tenant could move a dozen people into a 2 BR unit.  Also in San Diego county there was no requirement to show COVID impact to benefit from the supervisor’s Covid eviction ban which I believe was the most severe in the country.

What constitutes not taking for public use without just compensation? This seems to me a clear taking of private property against the 5th amendment.

In both the LA case and the San Diego case, the law makers were aware of the challenges of the LL ever collecting all the money owed.   They knew that the law makers were in effect forcing LLs to house people without compensation.   I am disappointed that the SC justices did not rule consistently with the realities of what was occurring.

I guarantee that we will experience more eviction moratoriums as this ruling encourages law makers to keep placing the burden on LLs to house people without compensation.   It is fundamentally wrong to place this burden on the LLs.

Make sure when you underwrite you recognize the risk of eviction moratoriums.

Good luck