Supreme Court Won’t Be Taking on This Takings Case
On June 30, the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari in GHP Management Corporation v. City of Los Angeles. The case arose out of a COVID-era eviction moratorium enacted by the City of Los Angeles which barred landlords from evicting tenants due to COVID-related non-payment of rent. Los Angeles landlords sued the city, arguing that the moratorium constituted a per se physical taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause which prohibits the taking of “private property . . . for public use without just compensation.”
The district court dismissed the landlords’ claim, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that ruling, holding that the moratorium did not constitute a per se physical taking. In the Ninth Circuit’s view, the law did not force the property owners to give space to “an interloper with a government license.” Instead, the law regulated the existing relationship between landlords and their previously invited tenants, a type of regulation that the Supreme Court has upheld in the past against Takings Clause challenges. In Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992), for example, the Court found no taking in a case where onerous delays were placed on evicting tenants from a mobile home community that had been voluntarily taken on as tenants. The Court also noted that the moratorium did not extend into perpetuity and allowed landlords to evict tenants on other, non-prohibited grounds, further evidencing that it was not a taking.
This holding by the Ninth Circuit conflicts with decisions in both the Eighth and Federal Circuits. Of particular note, the Federal Circuit recently denied a motion for rehearing en banc in Darby Development Co. v. United States, in which the court found that the COVID-era eviction moratorium imposed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention constituted a taking. Those courts have concluded that the applicable precedent is not Yee but instead Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021). In that case, the Court found a taking where agricultural property owners were required to permit labor organizers onto their land, reasoning that such a regulation constituted an appropriation of the owners’ right to exclude for the benefit of a third party.
The landlords filed a petition for certiorari seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, but the Supreme Court denied certiorari. In Justice Thomas’s dissent from that denial, in which Justice Gorsuch joined, Justice Thomas emphasized that the Supreme Court’s dueling decisions caused the circuit conflict, and that GHP Management Corp. was an ideal vehicle by which to resolve it. The Supreme Court having declined to do so, landlords will remain uncertain on whether the government may prohibit them from evicting their tenants. Another opportunity to address this takings standard may come if the federal government files a petition for a writ of certiorari in Darby. For more on Darby, see Client Alert: Federal Circuit Denies Rehearing in Takings Case on Eviction Moratorium. If a petition is filed and the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, the hearing would occur either late in the 2025-26 term or early in the 2026-27 term.
At Jenner & Block, we stand firm for our clients. Our Real Estate Litigation Practice, led by Andrew Vail and Dan Weiss has a long history of successfully litigating to protect unlawful government intrusions on property owners’ rights.
The district court dismissed the landlords’ claim, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that ruling, holding that the moratorium did not constitute a per se physical taking. In the Ninth Circuit’s view, the law did not force the property owners to give space to “an interloper with a government license.” Instead, the law regulated the existing relationship between landlords and their previously invited tenants, a type of regulation that the Supreme Court has upheld in the past against Takings Clause challenges. In Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992), for example, the Court found no taking in a case where onerous delays were placed on evicting tenants from a mobile home community that had been voluntarily taken on as tenants. The Court also noted that the moratorium did not extend into perpetuity and allowed landlords to evict tenants on other, non-prohibited grounds, further evidencing that it was not a taking.
This holding by the Ninth Circuit conflicts with decisions in both the Eighth and Federal Circuits. Of particular note, the Federal Circuit recently denied a motion for rehearing en banc in Darby Development Co. v. United States, in which the court found that the COVID-era eviction moratorium imposed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention constituted a taking. Those courts have concluded that the applicable precedent is not Yee but instead Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021). In that case, the Court found a taking where agricultural property owners were required to permit labor organizers onto their land, reasoning that such a regulation constituted an appropriation of the owners’ right to exclude for the benefit of a third party.
The landlords filed a petition for certiorari seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, but the Supreme Court denied certiorari. In Justice Thomas’s dissent from that denial, in which Justice Gorsuch joined, Justice Thomas emphasized that the Supreme Court’s dueling decisions caused the circuit conflict, and that GHP Management Corp. was an ideal vehicle by which to resolve it. The Supreme Court having declined to do so, landlords will remain uncertain on whether the government may prohibit them from evicting their tenants. Another opportunity to address this takings standard may come if the federal government files a petition for a writ of certiorari in Darby. For more on Darby, see Client Alert: Federal Circuit Denies Rehearing in Takings Case on Eviction Moratorium. If a petition is filed and the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, the hearing would occur either late in the 2025-26 term or early in the 2026-27 term.
At Jenner & Block, we stand firm for our clients. Our Real Estate Litigation Practice, led by Andrew Vail and Dan Weiss has a long history of successfully litigating to protect unlawful government intrusions on property owners’ rights.
Related Lawyers
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
On June 30, the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari in GHP Management Corporation v. City of Los Angeles. The case arose out of a COVID-era eviction moratorium enacted by the City of Los Angeles which barred landlords from evicting tenants due to COVID-related non-payment of rent. Los Angeles landlords sued the city, arguing that the moratorium constituted a per se physical taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause which prohibits the taking of “private property . . . for public use without just compensation.”
The district court dismissed the landlords’ claim, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that ruling, holding that the moratorium did not constitute a per se physical taking. In the Ninth Circuit’s view, the law did not force the property owners to give space to “an interloper with a government license.” Instead, the law regulated the existing relationship between landlords and their previously invited tenants, a type of regulation that the Supreme Court has upheld in the past against Takings Clause challenges. In Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992), for example, the Court found no taking in a case where onerous delays were placed on evicting tenants from a mobile home community that had been voluntarily taken on as tenants. The Court also noted that the moratorium did not extend into perpetuity and allowed landlords to evict tenants on other, non-prohibited grounds, further evidencing that it was not a taking.
This holding by the Ninth Circuit conflicts with decisions in both the Eighth and Federal Circuits. Of particular note, the Federal Circuit recently denied a motion for rehearing en banc in Darby Development Co. v. United States, in which the court found that the COVID-era eviction moratorium imposed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention constituted a taking. Those courts have concluded that the applicable precedent is not Yee but instead Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021). In that case, the Court found a taking where agricultural property owners were required to permit labor organizers onto their land, reasoning that such a regulation constituted an appropriation of the owners’ right to exclude for the benefit of a third party.
The landlords filed a petition for certiorari seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, but the Supreme Court denied certiorari. In Justice Thomas’s dissent from that denial, in which Justice Gorsuch joined, Justice Thomas emphasized that the Supreme Court’s dueling decisions caused the circuit conflict, and that GHP Management Corp. was an ideal vehicle by which to resolve it. The Supreme Court having declined to do so, landlords will remain uncertain on whether the government may prohibit them from evicting their tenants. Another opportunity to address this takings standard may come if the federal government files a petition for a writ of certiorari in Darby. For more on Darby, see Client Alert: Federal Circuit Denies Rehearing in Takings Case on Eviction Moratorium. If a petition is filed and the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, the hearing would occur either late in the 2025-26 term or early in the 2026-27 term.
At Jenner & Block, we stand firm for our clients. Our Real Estate Litigation Practice, led by Andrew Vail and Dan Weiss has a long history of successfully litigating to protect unlawful government intrusions on property owners’ rights.
The district court dismissed the landlords’ claim, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that ruling, holding that the moratorium did not constitute a per se physical taking. In the Ninth Circuit’s view, the law did not force the property owners to give space to “an interloper with a government license.” Instead, the law regulated the existing relationship between landlords and their previously invited tenants, a type of regulation that the Supreme Court has upheld in the past against Takings Clause challenges. In Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992), for example, the Court found no taking in a case where onerous delays were placed on evicting tenants from a mobile home community that had been voluntarily taken on as tenants. The Court also noted that the moratorium did not extend into perpetuity and allowed landlords to evict tenants on other, non-prohibited grounds, further evidencing that it was not a taking.
This holding by the Ninth Circuit conflicts with decisions in both the Eighth and Federal Circuits. Of particular note, the Federal Circuit recently denied a motion for rehearing en banc in Darby Development Co. v. United States, in which the court found that the COVID-era eviction moratorium imposed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention constituted a taking. Those courts have concluded that the applicable precedent is not Yee but instead Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021). In that case, the Court found a taking where agricultural property owners were required to permit labor organizers onto their land, reasoning that such a regulation constituted an appropriation of the owners’ right to exclude for the benefit of a third party.
The landlords filed a petition for certiorari seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, but the Supreme Court denied certiorari. In Justice Thomas’s dissent from that denial, in which Justice Gorsuch joined, Justice Thomas emphasized that the Supreme Court’s dueling decisions caused the circuit conflict, and that GHP Management Corp. was an ideal vehicle by which to resolve it. The Supreme Court having declined to do so, landlords will remain uncertain on whether the government may prohibit them from evicting their tenants. Another opportunity to address this takings standard may come if the federal government files a petition for a writ of certiorari in Darby. For more on Darby, see Client Alert: Federal Circuit Denies Rehearing in Takings Case on Eviction Moratorium. If a petition is filed and the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, the hearing would occur either late in the 2025-26 term or early in the 2026-27 term.
At Jenner & Block, we stand firm for our clients. Our Real Estate Litigation Practice, led by Andrew Vail and Dan Weiss has a long history of successfully litigating to protect unlawful government intrusions on property owners’ rights.
Related Lawyers
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Event
Amanda Shafer Berman to Speak on Energy and Administrative Law at WEN-DC Webinar
As the Supreme Court's new Term begins, Jenner & Block Partner Amanda Shafer Berman will join a Women's Energy Network of Washington, DC (WEN-DC) webinar on how the Court's decisions are shaping the energy sector.
October 14, 2026
Publications
Partner Amanda Shafer Berman Quoted in Bloomberg Law on Senate Permitting Overhaul Bill
Partner Amanda Shafer Berman was quoted in an October 5 Bloomberg Law article, "Permitting Deal Gives Projects Defense Against Litigation Delays," on the Senate's new permitting overhaul package and its expected impact on litigation over federal permitting reversals.
October 2026
Event
Partner John Storino to Speak at Sandpiper Partners' “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable”
On October 8, Partner John Storino will serve as a panelist at the “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable,” hosted by Sandpiper Partners in Chicago.
October 8, 2026
Event
Partner Meghan Greenfield to Speak on Supreme Court Climate Case at Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference
On Wednesday, October 7, Partner Meghan Greenfield will speak on a panel titled "Boulder County v. Suncor Energy: What the Supreme Court's Climate Case Means for the Energy Industry" at the Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah.
October 7, 2026
Publications
The Form Rules Everything: A Seventh Circuit Ruling on ERISA's Substantial Compliance Doctrine
Partner Joseph Torres and Special Counsel Jennifer Beach authored an article for Employee Relations Law Journal examining the Seventh Circuit's decision in Packaging Corp. of America Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees v. Langdon, a ruling that addresses both the standard of review in ERISA interpleader actions and the continued viability of the substantial compliance doctrine for changing plan beneficiaries.
October 5, 2026