Supreme Court Declines to Rule on Eviction Moratorium “Takings”

In a closely watched case, GHP Management Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, on June 30, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a major constitutional question: whether government-imposed eviction moratoriums during emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court’s refusal to hear the case leaves landlords across the country with legal uncertainty—and no uniform federal answer—on whether they are entitled to compensation when barred from evicting nonpaying tenants due to public emergency policies.

The Core Question: Does a Moratorium Violate the 5th Amendment?

At the heart of the case was a moratorium adopted by the City of Los Angeles, which prohibited landlords from evicting tenants for failing to pay rent due to COVID-related financial hardship. A group of property owners challenged the policy, claiming that this restriction amounted to a per se physical taking of their property. Under the Fifth Amendment, the government may not take private property for public use without just compensation. The landlords argued that forcing them to continue housing nonpaying tenants stripped them of their fundamental right to exclude others from their property.

However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the landlords, relying on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Yee v. City of Escondido (1992), which held that landlord-tenant laws regulating eviction timing or conditions do not constitute physical takings if the landlord voluntarily entered into a lease with a tenant. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the Los Angeles moratorium merely regulated the landlord-tenant relationship and did not rise to the level of a constitutional taking.

Deepening Circuit Split: 8th vs. 9th on Landlord Rights

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision to deny certiorari. The dissent pointed out a growing split among federal appellate courts on the issue. Specifically:

The Eighth Circuit (Heights Apartments, LLC v. Walz, 2022) and the Federal Circuit (Darby Development Co. v. U.S., 2024) ruled that eviction moratoriums do constitute per se physical takings, violating landlords’ right to exclude.
The Ninth Circuit took the opposite view, holding in this case that no taking occurred.

These conflicting rulings create legal instability across jurisdictions, leaving landlords subject to vastly different interpretations of their constitutional rights depending on where their property is located.

What This SCOTUS Denial Means for Landlords Nationwide

The Supreme Court’s refusal to resolve this issue leaves landlords in a precarious legal position. With no clear rule from the nation’s highest court, state and local governments remain free to enact eviction moratoria during future emergencies without having to compensate landlords—at least in jurisdictions aligned with the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation.

Justice Thomas warned that failing to address this issue now could have serious consequences in the next crisis. Municipalities across the U.S. are already adopting new moratoria in response to emergencies such as natural disasters, economic instability, or housing shortages. For example, both San Diego County and Los Angeles County have continued to implement eviction restrictions into 2025, well beyond the peak of the COVID-19 crisis.

As Thomas put it, the Court “created this confusion” through its past rulings and now has an obligation to “fix it”—particularly given the fundamental nature of a landlord’s right to exclude and the broad scope of these moratoriums’ economic impact.

4 Action Steps for Landlords After the SCOTUS Decision

1. Know Your Circuit: Federal appellate court rulings bind lower courts within their jurisdictions. If your rental property is in a state within the Eighth or Federal Circuits, you may have a viable “takings” claim. If you’re in the Ninth Circuit (including California), your chances are far slimmer under current precedent.
2. Document Economic Harm: If you experience losses due to eviction restrictions, document the financial impact thoroughly in case future legal action becomes possible.
3. Follow Local Legislative Trends: Continue monitoring city and county ordinances. Eviction moratoria are no longer limited to pandemics; local governments are increasingly turning to these tools in response to housing crises and other emergencies.
4. Stay Engaged in Policy Discussions: As this issue remains unresolved at the federal level, landlords should participate in legislative advocacy and public comment opportunities to protect their interests.

The Final Word: Uncertainty Remains, Vigilance is Key

The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear GHP Management Corp. v. City of Los Angeles is not a final answer—it’s a postponement of an inevitable reckoning. As emergency housing policies become more common, courts will continue to grapple with whether such restrictions on evictions cross constitutional boundaries. For now, landlords should brace for ongoing uncertainty, remain vigilant about their rights, and prepare for future litigation or policy shifts that may finally bring this issue before the Supreme Court again.