In his latest Daily Journal column, Manatt Appellate Senior Counsel Michael Berger discussed COVID-19's impact on the rental housing marketing and how resultant litigation led to the recent decision in Darby Development Co., Inc. v. United States.
According to the article, landlords sought compensation from the government alleging that the nonpayment regulation preventing evictions constituted a physical taking of their property. The government argued that both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) implementation of the ban in the early days of COVID and the regulatory action addressing rent control were not at the level required to invoke the Takings Clause. After journeying through the Court of Federal Claims, which agreed with the government’s arguments, the case landed in the Court of Appeals where the majority rejected such arguments.
As decided in a previous case that Berger litigated and won before the U.S. Supreme Court, just compensation is the remedy for a regulation which violates the Fifth Amendment. This ruling was applied in the Darby case. With any action that may adversely impact the rights of private property owners, the government should consider whether the action would require compensation. “The whole point of all provisions of the Bill of Rights is to protect the people against overreaching government action, not to protect the government against the people,” he wrote.
Daily Journal subscribers can read the full article here.