Sheridan Square now appeals the entry of summary judgment against its claims of arbitrary and capricious conduct violative of the APA and the Due Process Clause. It prospectively authorized HUD to use comparability studies as an independent limit upon rent adjustments. See 113 S. Ct. Thus the statute, and not the actions of HUD, is now the cause of any loss perceived by the Appellant. Whatever errors may have flawed HUD's comparability studies are of no moment because the studies themselves no longer have legal effect.
Claims arising from the studies are therefore extinguished irrespective of their prior merits.
We reject the procedural challenge because we conclude that Sheridan Square has failed to rebut the strong presumption of rationality afforded congressional action. We need not reach the merits of the substantive due process claim because we conclude that Sheridan Square failed to raise it in the district court. Although the Due Process Clause places more stringent constraints upon the retroactive reach of Congress than upon its prospective authority, we nonetheless favor retroactive economic legislation with a presumption of constitutionality and uphold such legislation unless the challenging party proves it to be arbitrary or irrational. Notwithstanding our usual deference to congressional enactments, we review economic legislation with particular scrutiny when a government attempts to redefine or abrogate its own contractual relationships. Provided that the retroactive application of a statute is supported by a legitimate legislative purpose furthered by rational means, judgments about the wisdom of such legislation remain within the exclusive province of the legislative and executive branches.