The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a closely watched challenge by Los Angeles-area landlords who argued that the city’s COVID-era eviction protections forced them to house tenants who were not paying rent without compensation. The refusal to take the case leaves a Ninth Circuit decision intact and delivers a difficult, though not necessarily final, message to housing providers seeking constitutional compensation for emergency eviction restrictions.
The petition came from GHP Management Corp. v. City of Los Angeles. The landlords argued that Los Angeles’ eviction moratorium deprived them of a core property right: the right to exclude occupants who did not pay rent. They framed the policy as a physical taking under the Fifth Amendment, not merely an economic regulation. The Court denied review without a majority opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from that denial.
For landlords, the immediate result is straightforward: this case will not provide a Supreme Court pathway to recover rent-related losses from Los Angeles’ COVID emergency rules. The broader lesson is more complicated. The legal dispute over when government restrictions on removing nonpaying tenants cross the line into a compensable taking remains unsettled, and two justices signaled that the Court should confront it.
What was at stake in GHP Management Corp. v. City of Los Angeles?
During the COVID-19 emergency, Los Angeles adopted sweeping tenant protections aimed at preventing displacement during an extraordinary public-health and economic crisis. The city restricted residential evictions for tenants who could show qualifying COVID-related financial hardship. The protections did not erase rent debt, but they limited an owner’s ability to use the usual eviction process to regain possession from a tenant who was behind.
A coalition of apartment owners alleged that the restrictions caused more than $20 million in unpaid rent losses. They argued that the city effectively required private housing providers to absorb a public burden: keeping qualifying tenants in their units even when rent was not being paid.
That framing matters. Landlords were not simply saying that a rule reduced their profits or made operations more expensive. Their constitutional claim focused on possession. In plain language, they argued: if an owner cannot lawfully remove a nonpaying occupant for an extended period, the government has taken away a fundamental feature of ownership — the ability to decide who may remain on the property.
The policy at issue eventually ended. But the owners sought compensation for the period in which they say their right to exclude was suspended.
The Takings Clause, in plain English
The Fifth Amendment says that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Most people recognize this principle in an eminent-domain situation, such as when the government takes land for a road and must pay the owner.
But takings law also covers circumstances where the government does not formally acquire title to property. Courts have long wrestled with when regulation becomes so intrusive that compensation is required.
There are several legal categories, but two are useful here:
- Regulatory taking: A rule restricts the use, value, or income potential of property. These claims are often difficult because governments may regulate housing, land use, safety, and economic activity without automatically owing compensation.
- Physical taking: The government authorizes an occupation of private property or takes control in a more direct way. Physical-taking claims generally receive stronger constitutional protection.
GHP Management argued that Los Angeles’ eviction restrictions belonged in the second category. The claim was not that the city physically moved tenants into vacant apartments. Rather, the owners argued that the city required them to continue accepting the presence of tenants whom they otherwise had a legal right to remove for nonpayment.
Why the “right to exclude” is central
The right to exclude is often described by courts as one of the most important rights associated with property ownership. It means an owner can generally decide who enters or remains on the property, subject to leases, statutes, court orders, and anti-discrimination laws.
A rental relationship naturally limits that right for a time. Once an owner grants possession through a lease, a tenant has legally protected rights to occupy the home. Landlords cannot simply remove a tenant at will. They must follow lease terms and state and local law.
But landlords in the Los Angeles case emphasized what happens after material nonpayment and after the ordinary legal conditions for eviction have been met. They argued that the city did more than regulate the timing or procedure of eviction. In their view, it barred owners from recovering possession from tenants who were no longer fulfilling a basic lease obligation.
The city took a very different view. It argued that the emergency rules were temporary regulations of the landlord-tenant relationship, adopted amid an unprecedented crisis, and that rent obligations remained. From that perspective, the rules regulated remedies; they did not transfer ownership or create a permanent government-authorized occupation.
That is the central tension in the case: when a government temporarily limits eviction, is it regulating a landlord’s remedy, or compelling an owner to endure an occupation that requires compensation?
What the lower courts held
The landlords filed suit seeking compensation under the Takings Clause. A federal district court dismissed the claim, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
The lower courts treated Los Angeles’ moratorium as a regulation rather than a physical taking. Their analysis reflected longstanding Supreme Court precedent recognizing broad governmental authority to regulate property, including residential rental housing.
A key feature of the courts’ reasoning was the consensual origin of the landlord-tenant relationship. The owners had voluntarily rented the units to the tenants. The government had not forced an unknown person onto the property at the outset. The restrictions affected the owner’s ability to terminate an existing tenancy during a defined emergency period.
The courts also considered the temporary nature of the measures and the fact that rent debt was not forgiven. In theory, the obligation to pay rent remained, even if recovering it promptly, or regaining possession, became much harder.
For many landlords, that distinction may feel painfully disconnected from real-world cash flow. An unpaid rent balance is not the same as collected rent. A legal claim is not the same as having funds for mortgages, taxes, payroll, insurance, repairs, and utilities. Still, the lower courts concluded that the Constitution did not require the city to compensate owners under the theory presented.
What the Supreme Court did — and did not — decide
The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. “Certiorari” is simply the formal term for the Court agreeing to review a lower-court case.
A denial of certiorari does not mean the Supreme Court endorsed every word of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. The Court denies review in the overwhelming majority of petitions, often without explanation. A denial does not create a new nationwide Supreme Court precedent.
But it has real consequences.
For the parties, the Ninth Circuit ruling remains in place. The Los Angeles landlords do not receive a Supreme Court hearing on their theory, and the lower-court judgment stands.
For landlords in the Ninth Circuit — which includes California and several western states — the decision is a reminder that this particular physical-takings argument faces a steep uphill path under current circuit precedent.
For the country, the underlying constitutional question remains open for future litigation. Another case, perhaps involving different facts, a different type of occupancy restriction, or disagreement among federal appeals courts, could return the issue to the Supreme Court.
The Thomas and Gorsuch dissent: why it matters
Justices Thomas and Gorsuch voted to hear the case. Justice Thomas wrote that he would grant review on the question of whether a policy barring eviction of tenants for nonpayment effects a physical taking under the Takings Clause.
He said the issue met the Court’s usual criteria for review and criticized the denial for leaving confusion on a significant question. In substance, the dissent highlighted the conflict between two established ideas: property owners have a strong constitutional right to exclude, but governments have significant authority to regulate the rental market.
The dissent did not decide that the landlords had already won. It did not award compensation, invalidate Los Angeles’ rules, or declare all eviction moratoria unconstitutional. Instead, it argued that the Court should take up the question and clarify the law.
That distinction is important. Headlines that suggest the two justices ruled the city’s policy unconstitutional go too far. What they did say, however, is still consequential: at least two members of the Court believed the issue was serious enough and uncertain enough to deserve full review.
For housing providers, the dissent offers a credible legal signal that the constitutional debate over prolonged restrictions on removing nonpaying tenants is not settled. It also gives advocates and litigants language to watch closely in future property-rights cases.
A landlord’s reality check: rent debt on paper vs. cash flow in real life
One reason this story keeps resonating is that it captures a gap landlords lived through in real time.
Yes, many COVID-era policies said rent was still owed. But in practice, landlords often faced:
- Months (or years) of delayed court access
- Tenants who stopped paying entirely
- Slow or confusing rental-assistance programs
- Rising insurance, tax, and maintenance costs
- Mortgage obligations that did not pause just because rent did
That’s why the “takings” argument keeps coming back. When a policy prevents an owner from recovering possession from a nonpaying tenant, it can feel less like regulation and more like the government requiring a private party to provide housing without payment.
Why this case matters beyond Los Angeles
COVID-era eviction protections were not unique to Los Angeles. Federal, state, county, and municipal governments adopted a patchwork of moratoria, notice requirements, payment-plan rules, hardship protections, and rental-assistance programs.
The human purpose was clear: prevent widespread displacement during a public emergency. But the cost of delaying eviction was often borne unevenly. Large institutional owners may have had greater access to financing and legal resources. Small landlords — including retirees, working families, and owners of a few units — frequently carried mortgage obligations and operating costs while rent went unpaid.
The case raises a policy question that remains relevant even after many COVID rules have expired: when government asks private owners to provide a social safety net, who pays for it?
Emergency tenant protections may be politically popular during a crisis. Yet policymakers should be candid about the financial burden. If eviction restrictions are extended, broad, or paired with slow rental-assistance systems, housing providers can face severe liquidity pressure. That pressure can lead to deferred maintenance, reduced supply, higher screening standards, fewer small landlords, or sales to larger investors.
None of that means tenant protections are inherently improper. It means durable policy should account for both sides of the rental relationship. Emergency measures work better when they include fast, accessible funding; clear expiration dates; workable court procedures; fraud controls; and a realistic path for owners to recover possession or unpaid amounts when obligations are not met.
Practical takeaways for landlords right now
Even though this case is about a past emergency program, its operational lessons are current.
1) Treat local law as the immediate rulebook
Constitutional arguments can take years and may not resolve a current possession problem. Landlords should first follow the eviction, notice, rent-demand, entry, deposit, and anti-retaliation requirements where the property is located. State law, city ordinances, court rules, and temporary emergency orders can all matter.
2) Document every step
Keep organized records of the lease, payment ledger, notices, communications, hardship claims, repair requests, inspection reports, and attempts to offer payment plans or rental-assistance information. Documentation is essential in court and can help prevent disputes from becoming credibility contests.
3) Do not use self-help eviction tactics
Changing locks, shutting off utilities, removing belongings, or pressuring a tenant outside the legal process can create substantial liability. Even when rent is overdue, use the lawful process available in your jurisdiction.
4) Build a cash-flow contingency plan
The pandemic demonstrated that legal rights and practical recovery timelines can diverge. Consider reserve targets, insurance options, financing risks, lease provisions reviewed by local counsel, and procedures for early outreach when a tenant misses payment.
5) Screen lawfully and consistently
Stronger screening cannot mean discriminatory screening. Use written, legally compliant criteria; apply them consistently; and stay current on federal, state, and local fair-housing rules. Where permitted, verify income, rental history, credit-related information, and references using a consistent process.
6) Track policy developments before the next emergency
Local governments may revisit eviction restrictions after disasters, public-health events, or economic disruptions. Join local landlord associations, monitor municipal agendas, and participate in public comment periods. Waiting until a rule takes effect is often too late to influence its design.
The bigger property-rights question is still alive
The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear GHP Management is a setback for the plaintiffs, but it is not the end of the conversation. The denial leaves existing precedent in place while the dissent underscores that the boundary between permissible rental regulation and a compensable physical taking remains contested.
Future cases may look different. Courts could face laws that last longer, apply more broadly, eliminate more remedies, involve different types of occupants, or produce a sharper split among federal circuits. The factual details will matter.
For now, landlords should avoid reading the decision as a blanket declaration that every eviction moratorium is constitutional, or that every COVID-era policy was legally identical. Courts analyze the specific text, duration, scope, remedies, and factual setting of each law.
The more practical takeaway is that property rights require active advocacy before a crisis, not only litigation after the damage is done. Housing providers need a seat at the table when emergency measures are written. Policies can protect vulnerable tenants without turning individual landlords into uncompensated insurers of public hardship.
AAOL’s perspective: fair rules require shared responsibility
The American Association of Landlords believes rental housing works best when responsibilities are clear and enforceable. Tenants deserve safe homes and fair treatment. Landlords deserve reliable legal processes, meaningful contract enforcement, and rules that do not force them to carry public-policy costs alone.
The Los Angeles case should prompt an honest national discussion. If a government chooses to delay evictions during an emergency, it should pair that decision with timely assistance, fair administration, clear limits, and accountability. Promising rent relief on paper is not enough if owners cannot obtain it before their own bills come due.
Landlords also need practical, current guidance as laws change. That is why AAOL tracks property-rights developments, shares landlord-focused resources, and advocates for policies that recognize housing providers as essential participants in the rental ecosystem.
<p><strong>Want to stay informed and strengthen the landlord voice?</strong> Explore AAOL membership resources and support landlord advocacy here: <a href=”https://aaol.org/subscription-plan/”>https://aaol.org/subscription-plan/</a>.</p>
Legal disclaimer
This article is for general educational and news-commentary purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Landlord-tenant laws vary widely by state and locality, and emergency rules, court procedures, and deadlines can change. Consult a qualified attorney or local housing professional about your specific property, lease, and situation.
Sources and further reading
- Supreme Court docket: GHP Management Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, No. 24-435.
- Los Angeles Times reporting on the Supreme Court’s denial and the underlying dispute.
- U.S. Constitution, Amendment V.
- Supreme Court property-rights decisions discussing the right to exclude, including Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid.
The Court’s denial may have closed one appeal, but it did not close the debate. For landlords, policymakers, and courts, the question remains: when emergency housing policy prevents an owner from removing a nonpaying tenant, where does regulation end and a constitutional taking begin?
