U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Takings Clause Challenge to COVID Eviction Moratorium: On June 30, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari in GHP Management Corp. v. City of Los Angeles over a dissent authored by Justice Thomas and joined by Justice Gorsuch. In this case, landlords challenged an eviction moratorium that the City of Los Angeles had put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic to prevent a surge in evictions and resulting homelessness, alleging that the policy took their property without just compensation in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Although the moratorium had long since expired, the landlords sought compensation for the period during which it was in place. The Ninth Circuit had rejected the landlords’ claim, relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Yee v. City of Escondido, which upheld the constitutionality of rent control and just cause eviction protections. The landlords in GHP Management Corp., advancing an argument that had succeeded in the Eighth and Federal Circuits, argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, which emphasized the “right to exclude” as a hallmark of property rights, controlled rather than Yee. The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in GHP Management Corp. is hugely positive for the housing justice and civil rights fields as a negative decision, especially one overturning Yee, could have had implications for a far broader set of tenant protections than just eviction moratoria. Despite this victory, it will be incumbent upon us to remain vigilant, as the groups that have been advocating for an extreme vision of property rights that would undermine tenant protections are not going away. An excellent analysis of the case that was published prior to the denial of certiorari is available here.
Challenge to Washington State Special Purpose Credit Program Dismissed:On June 24, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss in FAIR v. Walker on standing grounds. FAIR was a challenge to the Washington State Housing Finance Commission’s Covenant Homeownership Program. That program is a special purpose credit program that provides homebuyer assistance to people who were harmed by Washington State’s history of intentional housing discrimination (including state court enforcement of racially restrictive covenants) and their descendants. A robust body of evidence of discrimination and its continuing effects – outlined in a reportdrafted by the National Fair Housing Alliance, Abt Associates, the Fair Housing Center of Washington, and the Northwest Fair Housing Alliance – supports the validity of the program. Special purpose credit programs, especially race-conscious ones, can be an effective tool for reducing the racial wealth gap. In this case, the court held that the plaintiff had not established that it had a member who was ready and able to qualify for the program with regard to its race-neutral eligibility criteria and that the plaintiff had not proffered “competent proof” when the defendant challenged the factual basis of its standing assertions. This decision is a victory for the civil rights community, but it is possible that the plaintiff will try to amend its complaint to strengthen the factual basis for its standing or appeal the ruling.
Other news and resources
Register for the 10th National Conference on Housing Mobility: On Friday, October 17, 2025, PRRAC and our partners at Mobility Works will be hosting the 10th National Conference on Housing Mobility in Chicago, Illinois. We have outstanding panels lined up on topics including housing mobility and health, housing mobility and relocation, and source of income discrimination, as well as a blockbuster keynote. Those who are interested in attending can register here.
PRRAC-Led Sign-On Letter Submitted for Rescission of Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Regulations: On July 3, 2025, PRRAC submitted a comment letter in opposition to HUD’s proposed rescission of its Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing regulations on behalf of 72 organizations and individuals, including national, state, and local groups across a range of sectors. PRRAC played a key role in informing civil rights and affordable housing stakeholders about the threat posed by the proposed rule and about the importance of maintaining and strengthening affirmative marketing requirements, rather than scrapping them.
p.s. – to receive this biweekly e-newsletter, sign up here.
