Federal Circuit Denies Rehearing in Takings Case on Eviction Moratorium
In a win for landlords, on June 6th, 2025, the Federal Circuit denied the government’s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in Darby Development Company, Inc. v. United States.
Darby arose out of a nationwide eviction moratorium imposed by the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during the pandemic. The moratorium, which prevented landlords from evicting tenants, was struck down by the Supreme Court on the grounds that it exceeded the CDC’s statutory authority. Following that decision, a group of landlords who owned residential rental properties sued the United States under the Takings Clause seeking just compensation. As a claim for money damages against the federal government, the claim was initially heard in the Court of Federal Claims, where it was dismissed on the grounds that the unlawful moratorium was unauthorized and therefore could not be considered a taking. On August 7, 2024, the Federal Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Sharon Prost, joined by Judge Kara Stoll, reversed, concluding that the plaintiffs stated a claim for a physical taking.
For the landlords to proceed on that claim, they were required to show that the CDC’s action was “authorized.” The Federal Circuit held that although unlawful, the CDC’s action was authorized. In the court’s view, the government’s action in issuing the eviction moratorium was a “good faith implementation of” the governing law and accordingly the act was chargeable to the government such that it could be considered to be authorized. The Federal Circuit further held that, accepting the plaintiffs’ allegations as true, the moratorium constituted a physical taking because it denied the landlords’ right to exclude unwanted tenants from their properties.
The success of the plaintiffs in this case has far reaching implications. It gives landlords an avenue to reclaim months’ worth of lost rent, and the government could be forced to pay billions in claims. The financial consequences also might deter governments and government agencies from enacting similar regulations in the future. For an earlier discussion of the majority’s decision, see Client Alert: Federal Circuit Issues Important Takings Decision on Eviction Moratorium.
The consequences of that prior decision became more real for the government with the Federal Circuit’s denial of rehearing on the case. Three judges dissented from the denial of rehearing. The primary dissent, authored by Judge Dyk, joined by Judge Cunningham, concluded that the majority’s decision “is contrary to more than 100 years of Supreme Court precedent that holds that a government agent’s actions do not subject the government to takings liability unless they were made with actual authority under the statute.” In Judge Dyk’s view, the panel majority erred in importing tort-law standards of vicarious liability into takings law. Judge Stark wrote a separate dissent arguing that the case warranted en banc review in view of its exceptional importance.
This case may not be over. In an opinion concurring with the order denying rehearing, Judge Chen stated, “the issue in this case, which goes to the scope of the Takings Clause, would benefit from Supreme Court guidance.” In view of the high financial stakes, the government may well file a petition for certiorari seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s decision. Any petition for certiorari would be due, at latest, 150 days from the Federal Circuit’s rehearing order. If 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, along with Adam Unikowsky of our Appellate and Supreme Court Practice and others, are litigating to protect unlawful government intrusions on property owners’ rights, continuing the firm’s long history of successfully litigating these important legal issues.
For the landlords to proceed on that claim, they were required to show that the CDC’s action was “authorized.” The Federal Circuit held that although unlawful, the CDC’s action was authorized. In the court’s view, the government’s action in issuing the eviction moratorium was a “good faith implementation of” the governing law and accordingly the act was chargeable to the government such that it could be considered to be authorized. The Federal Circuit further held that, accepting the plaintiffs’ allegations as true, the moratorium constituted a physical taking because it denied the landlords’ right to exclude unwanted tenants from their properties.
The success of the plaintiffs in this case has far reaching implications. It gives landlords an avenue to reclaim months’ worth of lost rent, and the government could be forced to pay billions in claims. The financial consequences also might deter governments and government agencies from enacting similar regulations in the future. For an earlier discussion of the majority’s decision, see Client Alert: Federal Circuit Issues Important Takings Decision on Eviction Moratorium.
The consequences of that prior decision became more real for the government with the Federal Circuit’s denial of rehearing on the case. Three judges dissented from the denial of rehearing. The primary dissent, authored by Judge Dyk, joined by Judge Cunningham, concluded that the majority’s decision “is contrary to more than 100 years of Supreme Court precedent that holds that a government agent’s actions do not subject the government to takings liability unless they were made with actual authority under the statute.” In Judge Dyk’s view, the panel majority erred in importing tort-law standards of vicarious liability into takings law. Judge Stark wrote a separate dissent arguing that the case warranted en banc review in view of its exceptional importance.
This case may not be over. In an opinion concurring with the order denying rehearing, Judge Chen stated, “the issue in this case, which goes to the scope of the Takings Clause, would benefit from Supreme Court guidance.” In view of the high financial stakes, the government may well file a petition for certiorari seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s decision. Any petition for certiorari would be due, at latest, 150 days from the Federal Circuit’s rehearing order. If 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, along with Adam Unikowsky of our Appellate and Supreme Court Practice and others, are litigating to protect unlawful government intrusions on property owners’ rights, continuing the firm’s long history of successfully litigating these important legal issues.
Related Attorneys
Related Capabilities
© 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.
In a win for landlords, on June 6th, 2025, the Federal Circuit denied the government’s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in Darby Development Company, Inc. v. United States.
Darby arose out of a nationwide eviction moratorium imposed by the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during the pandemic. The moratorium, which prevented landlords from evicting tenants, was struck down by the Supreme Court on the grounds that it exceeded the CDC’s statutory authority. Following that decision, a group of landlords who owned residential rental properties sued the United States under the Takings Clause seeking just compensation. As a claim for money damages against the federal government, the claim was initially heard in the Court of Federal Claims, where it was dismissed on the grounds that the unlawful moratorium was unauthorized and therefore could not be considered a taking. On August 7, 2024, the Federal Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Sharon Prost, joined by Judge Kara Stoll, reversed, concluding that the plaintiffs stated a claim for a physical taking.
For the landlords to proceed on that claim, they were required to show that the CDC’s action was “authorized.” The Federal Circuit held that although unlawful, the CDC’s action was authorized. In the court’s view, the government’s action in issuing the eviction moratorium was a “good faith implementation of” the governing law and accordingly the act was chargeable to the government such that it could be considered to be authorized. The Federal Circuit further held that, accepting the plaintiffs’ allegations as true, the moratorium constituted a physical taking because it denied the landlords’ right to exclude unwanted tenants from their properties.
The success of the plaintiffs in this case has far reaching implications. It gives landlords an avenue to reclaim months’ worth of lost rent, and the government could be forced to pay billions in claims. The financial consequences also might deter governments and government agencies from enacting similar regulations in the future. For an earlier discussion of the majority’s decision, see Client Alert: Federal Circuit Issues Important Takings Decision on Eviction Moratorium.
The consequences of that prior decision became more real for the government with the Federal Circuit’s denial of rehearing on the case. Three judges dissented from the denial of rehearing. The primary dissent, authored by Judge Dyk, joined by Judge Cunningham, concluded that the majority’s decision “is contrary to more than 100 years of Supreme Court precedent that holds that a government agent’s actions do not subject the government to takings liability unless they were made with actual authority under the statute.” In Judge Dyk’s view, the panel majority erred in importing tort-law standards of vicarious liability into takings law. Judge Stark wrote a separate dissent arguing that the case warranted en banc review in view of its exceptional importance.
This case may not be over. In an opinion concurring with the order denying rehearing, Judge Chen stated, “the issue in this case, which goes to the scope of the Takings Clause, would benefit from Supreme Court guidance.” In view of the high financial stakes, the government may well file a petition for certiorari seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s decision. Any petition for certiorari would be due, at latest, 150 days from the Federal Circuit’s rehearing order. If 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, along with Adam Unikowsky of our Appellate and Supreme Court Practice and others, are litigating to protect unlawful government intrusions on property owners’ rights, continuing the firm’s long history of successfully litigating these important legal issues.
For the landlords to proceed on that claim, they were required to show that the CDC’s action was “authorized.” The Federal Circuit held that although unlawful, the CDC’s action was authorized. In the court’s view, the government’s action in issuing the eviction moratorium was a “good faith implementation of” the governing law and accordingly the act was chargeable to the government such that it could be considered to be authorized. The Federal Circuit further held that, accepting the plaintiffs’ allegations as true, the moratorium constituted a physical taking because it denied the landlords’ right to exclude unwanted tenants from their properties.
The success of the plaintiffs in this case has far reaching implications. It gives landlords an avenue to reclaim months’ worth of lost rent, and the government could be forced to pay billions in claims. The financial consequences also might deter governments and government agencies from enacting similar regulations in the future. For an earlier discussion of the majority’s decision, see Client Alert: Federal Circuit Issues Important Takings Decision on Eviction Moratorium.
The consequences of that prior decision became more real for the government with the Federal Circuit’s denial of rehearing on the case. Three judges dissented from the denial of rehearing. The primary dissent, authored by Judge Dyk, joined by Judge Cunningham, concluded that the majority’s decision “is contrary to more than 100 years of Supreme Court precedent that holds that a government agent’s actions do not subject the government to takings liability unless they were made with actual authority under the statute.” In Judge Dyk’s view, the panel majority erred in importing tort-law standards of vicarious liability into takings law. Judge Stark wrote a separate dissent arguing that the case warranted en banc review in view of its exceptional importance.
This case may not be over. In an opinion concurring with the order denying rehearing, Judge Chen stated, “the issue in this case, which goes to the scope of the Takings Clause, would benefit from Supreme Court guidance.” In view of the high financial stakes, the government may well file a petition for certiorari seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s decision. Any petition for certiorari would be due, at latest, 150 days from the Federal Circuit’s rehearing order. If 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, along with Adam Unikowsky of our Appellate and Supreme Court Practice and others, are litigating to protect unlawful government intrusions on property owners’ rights, continuing the firm’s long history of successfully litigating these important legal issues.
Related Attorneys
Related Capabilities
© 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
Jenner & Block Partners to Speak at Council on Governmental Relations Conference
On June 11, Partners Mike Vernick, Katie Wynbrandt, and Betsy Henthorne will speak on a panel at the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) meeting.
June 11, 2026
Recognition
Jenner & Block's Law Firm Defense Practice Receives Band 1 Nationwide Ranking in 2026 Chambers USA
For the third consecutive year, Jenner & Block's Law Firm and Professional Services Defense Practice has achieved a Nationwide Band 1 ranking in the 2026 edition of Chambers USA.
June 10, 2026
Publications
Partner Emily Loeb Quoted in Semafor on Corporate Risk Ahead of Midterm Elections
Partner Emily Loeb was quoted in Semafor in an article examining how House Democrats plan to leverage a potential midterm election majority to pursue oversight investigations into corporations with ties to the Trump administration.
June 9, 2026