Knocking on the Supreme Court’s door
Earlier this week in this Order, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review four property rights cert petitions (three of which were ours):
- Iten v. County of Los Angeles – whether a Co-19 commercial eviction moratorium impaired the obligation of contracts (the lessor-lessee leases)?
- Gym 24/7 Fitness, LLC v. Michigan – should Penn Central be clarified or overruled?
- Mount Clemens Recreational Bowl, Inc. v. Hertel – same.
- Lozman v. Riviera Beach – regulatory takings ripeness.
Is this a sign, something we should place any significance in?
Of course, reading Supreme Court tea leaves is a fool’s errand except for nine people, none of whom are talking. Sometimes there are hints, such as dissents from cert denials, or statements. Not this time. Just what might be considered “routine” denials. We don’t think that these denials should tell us much of anything about some overall trend, or shift in the Court’s interest in property rights cases.
Disappointing for sure, especially for those of us and our clients who have to live in the trenches with the realities which stem from the Court declining to clear things up. What academics and Justices see as mere “doctrinal confusion” has real-life consequences for the property owners who have to live with it.
But discouraging? Not really. There are more on way from us and others, and we don’t see evidence that anyone is ready to throw in the towel. Remember how long it took for the Court to understand that the Williamson County rule needed to be revisited and tossed out? Too long, no doubt. But it happened.
So we shall keep on pressing. As we noted, the knocking on the Supreme Court’s door will continue soon, unabated. And more after that.
Meanwhile, as always, stay tuned.
