The Supreme Court has decided not to hear a challenge to New York City’s strict rent control laws.
The decision to deny the petition in Community Housing Improvement Program v. City of New York (court file 22-1095) came on Oct. 2 in an unsigned order. No justices dissented. For oral arguments to be scheduled, at least four of the nine justices have to vote to grant the petition.
But the court’s ruling here will not be the last word on the issue, according to an Oct. 4 joint statement from the petitioners, the Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP) and the Rent Stabilization Association of NYC (RSA).
“Let’s be clear. The Supreme Court’s actions do not certify New York’s Rent Stabilization Law is constitutional,” CHIP and RSA told The Epoch Times.
“We knew that bringing facial challenges to the law was an uphill battle, but that was also the quickest and most efficient way to provide the broadest relief for all property owners suffering from unconstitutional restrictions under this law. We see the Supreme Court’s decision not to take our case as a signal to bring more targeted challenges to specific provisions of the law illustrating direct impacts on housing providers.
“This is not the end of the road. Unfortunately, the current policies are forcing thousands of buildings into bankruptcy, so there are plenty of examples that can now be brought before the courts. This decision just strengthens our commitment to bring better housing policy to New York. We remain unwavering and resolute in fighting for a more balanced, equitable housing system.”
Landlords in the Big Apple have long been dissatisfied with New York’s Rent Stabilization Law (RSL), which has existed since 1969.
The law regulates all apartments located in buildings built before 1974 with six or more units. Owners of rent-stabilized apartments aren’t permitted to boost rents above a limit determined every year by a citywide oversight board. These landlords are generally required to extend tenants’ leases except in certain situations, such as when a tenant falls behind in paying rent.
“[The RSL is] the nation’s most stringent rental housing regulation, governing one million New York City apartments. It appropriates owners’ right to exclude and other property rights by, upon the expiration of a tenant’s lease, preventing owners from occupying their property, changing its use, or simply leaving it vacant,” the petition filed by CHIP and RSA stated.
The New York Legislature has amended the law over the years, responding to pressure from tenants, who say that rents are too high and affordable housing is increasingly difficult to find, and landlords, who say that rising maintenance costs have exceeded their ability to raise rents. An amendment to the statute in 2019 imposed conditions on landlords’ ability to remove rent-stabilized units from the market for personal use and rescinded exceptions to the rent-increase limits for wealthy or longstanding tenants, according to a SCOTUSblog summary.
CHIP, RSA, and individual landlords first sued in 2019, challenging the constitutionality of what they argued was a burdensome regulatory scheme. They say the RSL has hurt owners and tenants alike and has been holding New York City’s housing market back for decades.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the lawsuit. The parties appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal in February of this year.
Property rights advocates say New York’s rent restrictions are hurting landlords and the rental housing market.
In California, rent control may be expanded next year.
That’s because in November 2024, state residents are scheduled to vote on whether to repeal the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which blocks cities and counties from imposing annual rent caps on apartment and single-family dwellings constructed after 1995. California already has a Tenant Protection Act, which limits annual rent hikes to 10 percent or 5 percent plus the Consumer Price Index.
The Epoch Times reached out for comment to attorneys representing the city and state of New York and to New York City tenant groups involved in the case but received none by press time.
