Rent Control Will Stand In New York Supreme Court Says

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear challenges to New York’s rent-control laws so rent control will stand in New York

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear challenges to New York’s rent-control laws, according to reports.

Two cases were brought by owners of apartment buildings or individual units that are subject to the laws. The challengers had asked the justices to overturn the rent regulations has governed more than one million units in the city for decades and provided some of the nation’s most tenant-friendly rules.

The apartment owners told the justices that the 1969 law and its related regulations “amount to the most onerous rent-control provisions the United States has ever seen” and that they lead to “an unconstitutional taking without just compensation,” according to reports.

The New York Rent Stabilization Law, which dates back to 1969, requires landlords to renew leases except in limited circumstances, including a failure to pay rent, and lets family members take over a lease if they have lived in the unit for at least two years, Crain’s New York Business reported.

The law also gives the city’s Rent Guidelines Board authority to set maximum rent increases every year. The board considers a list of factors, including the economic condition of the residential real estate industry, vacancy rates and the cost of living in the area. The law applies to buildings that were built before 1974 and have six or more units.

Justice Clarence Thomas did issue a short statement saying that the “constitutionality of regimes like New York City’s is an important and pressing question,” which could give rent-control critics some hope the court would consider the issue in the future.

Rent Control Contributes To Affordable Housing Shortage

Governor Signs Revised Oregon Rent Control Law

Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter And Get Apartment News And Helpful, Useful Content Each Week.

* indicates required

Fair Housing Matters: Landlord Liability for Tenant-on-Tenant Discrimination