Court Opinion

ID: 9942065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 15:01:15.9251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:41.777870
License: Public Domain

Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2024)            1

                    Statement of THOMAS, J.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
               74 PINEHURST LLC, ET AL.
22–1130                  v.
                   NEW YORK, ET AL.

                335–7 LLC, ET AL.
22–1170                v.
      CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK, ET AL.
 ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
  STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
      Nos. 22–1130 and 22–1170. Decided February 20, 2024

  The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.
  Statement of JUSTICE THOMAS respecting the denials of
certiorari.
  Petitioners are owners of small and midsize apartment
buildings who challenge New York City’s rent stabilization
laws. Among other things, they argue that New York City’s
regulations grant tenants and their successors an indefi-
nite, infinitely renewable lease terminable only for reasons
outside of the landlord’s control. Petitioners argue that
they have suffered a per se taking as a result. The consti-
tutionality of regimes like New York City’s is an important
and pressing question. There are roughly one million rental
apartments affected in New York City alone. See Pet. for
Cert. in No. 22–1130, p. 1; Brief in Opposition for City of
New York et al. in No. 22–1130, p. 4. And, the Courts of
Appeals have taken different approaches: The Second Cir-
cuit rejected petitioners’ takings claims at the pleading
stage, but at least one other Court of Appeals has accepted
similar claims. Compare 59 F. 4th 557 (CA2 2023) (case
below), with Heights Apartments, LLC v. Walz, 30 F. 4th
720 (CA8 2022).
  The pleadings in these petitioners’ cases, however, would
2             74 PINEHURST LLC v. NEW YORK

                    Statement of THOMAS, J.

complicate our review. The petitioners’ complaints primar-
ily contain generalized allegations about their circum-
stances and injuries. But, to evaluate their as-applied chal-
lenges, we must consider whether specific New York City
regulations prevent petitioners from evicting actual ten-
ants for particular reasons. Similarly, petitioners’ facial
challenges require a clear understanding of how New York
City regulations coordinate to completely bar landlords
from evicting tenants. The pleadings do not facilitate such
an understanding. However, in an appropriate future case,
we should grant certiorari to address this important ques-
tion.