The constitutionality of eviction bans and federal jurisdiction
Here is a short explanation of relists. Here is a short explanation of relists.
The Supreme Court disposed of two of the first-time relists from last week in a matter of minutes. In United States Postal Service V. Konan, the court granted review to determine if the Federal Tort Claims Act exemption for claims arising from the “loss” or “miscarriage of letters or postal matters” extends to claims made by the Post Office that it deliberately refused to deliver mail at an address. But the court denied review of landlord Lebene Konan’s cross-petition claiming that Postal Service employees conspired to deny her civil rights.
Turning to new business: There are 116 petitions and applications scheduled for this week’s conference. The justices will discuss two of them a second time.
First is The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Sarah and Grant Palmquist, Texas residents, filed a Texas state law suit against Hain Celestial and Whole Foods. They claimed that their son had developed autism and other disorders after consuming Hain’s Earth’s Best ™ baby foods sold at Whole Foods. Hain moved the case from state court to federal court. They claimed that the Palmquists included Whole Foods fraudulently in the case, to defeat diversity jurisdiction. The district court agreed with Whole Foods and dismissed it with prejudice. After a two-week trial, the district court granted Hain’s Rule 50(a). It found that the Palmquists had failed to prove that their son’s symptoms were caused by heavy metals. The U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, revived claims against Whole Foods on appeal. They concluded that the Palmquists made a colorable claim of breach of express warranty, even if they did so by clarifying amendments that were only made after the case was moved to federal court. According to the 5th Circuit, the district court never had subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the entire proceeding was vacated, and sent back state court. Caterpillar Inc. V. Lewis is cited by the companies. In that case, the court held a district court’s error of failing to remand a case improperly removed is not fatal as long as federal jurisdictional requirements were met at the time the judgment was entered. They claim that the 5th Circuit made a mistake by vacating the final judgment when there were only two parties left in the case and the trial was over. They also say that plaintiffs such as the Palmquists can’t defeat diversity jurisdiction by amending their complaint to include facts supporting an unviable claim previously against a nondiverse party. They point out that unlike Caterpillar, in this case the non-diverse defendant (Whole Foods), was wrongfully dismissed and not voluntarily dropped. They claim that the jurisdictional defect has never been corrected. They also claim that the alleged circuit break is based on cases prior to Caterpillar or distinguishable. Finally, they stress that their complaint always encompassed an express warranty claim — it was simply clarified after removal to meet federal pleading standards, not to add new jurisdiction-defeating allegations.
Our second relist is in GHP Management Corp v. City of Los Angeles, California. Los Angeles passed an eviction ban in March 2020. This ban prohibits property owners from evicting tenants who are unable to pay rent because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The moratorium was in effect until 2023 with some protections lasting into 2024. The ordinance imposed severe penalties on landlords who “endeavor to evict”, tenants who were protected by the moratorium. They claimed that the ordinance was a physical occupation similar to Cedar Point Nursery V. Hassid in which the court ruled that laws requiring property owner to allow access to union organizers constituted a physical occupying of land.
The district court dismissed the case at the pleading stage, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed in a short unpublished opinion that relied heavily on Yee v. City of Escondido, a 1992 case holding that when property owners invite tenants onto their land voluntarily, the government can regulate that relationship (there, through rent control) without necessarily effecting a taking.
GHP’s petition argues that the 9th Circuit has misread Yee and failed to appreciate the newer rule from Cedar Point: that government-authorized occupations — even temporary ones — are takings when they deny owners the right to exclude. GHP claims that Los Angeles did exactly this by prohibiting landlords to remove tenants who were not paying rent. They claim that the decision below creates a circuit split with the decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit and 8th Circuit which, they argue, both recognized that evictions moratoria can be physical takings. The City of Los Angeles, tenant rights intervenors and the court of appeals for the Federal Circuit paint a different picture. They claim that the ordinance was merely an affirmative defense against evictions and not a ban. Furthermore, they say that landlords did not even try to evict their tenants, so that no tenant used the city’s protective measures against landlords.
They also argue that Yee is the right decision because the lease agreements are voluntary and the ordinance does not force landlords to accept tenants or physically occupy their property. They insist that there is no meaningful circuit split. They claim that the Federal and 8th Circuits have not broken with Yee because they dealt with distinct facts. They also claim that the issue has become stale, as the pandemic-era policies were repealed and dozens of similar certs denied. Until next time!
New Relists
GHP Management Corp v. City of Los Angeles, California, 24-435
Issue
: Whether an eviction moratorium depriving property owners of the fundamental right to exclude nonpaying tenants effects a physical taking.
(Relisted after the Apr. 17 conference. )
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist, 24-724
Issues
: (1) Whether a district court’s final judgment as to completely diverse parties must be vacated when an appellate court later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse party at the time of removal; and (2) whether a plaintiff may defeat diversity jurisdiction after removal by amending the complaint to add factual allegations that state a colorable claim against a non-diverse party when the complaint at the time of removal did not state such a claim.
(Relisted after the Apr. 17 conference. )
Returning Relists
Apache Stronghold v. United States, 24-291Issue
: Whether the government “substantially burdens” religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or must satisfy heightened scrutiny under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, when it singles out a sacred site for complete physical destruction, ending specific religious rituals forever.
(Relisted after the Dec. 6, Dec. 13, Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21, Mar. 28, Apr. Conferences on Apr. 17 conferences. )
Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Rhode Island, 24-131Issues:
(1) Whether a retrospective and confiscatory ban on the possession of ammunition-feeding devices that are in common use violates the Second Amendment; and (2) whether a law dispossessing citizens without compensation of property that they lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.
(Relisted after the Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21, Mar. 28, Apr. Conferences on Apr. 17 conferences. )
Snope v. Brown, 24-203
Issue: Whether the Constitution permits Maryland to ban semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in America.
(Relisted after the Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21, Mar. 28, Apr. Conferences on Apr. 4, Apr. 17, and Apr. 28, 2019)
L.M. 17 conferences.)
L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts, 24-410Issue
: Whether school officials may presume substantial disruption or a violation of the rights of others from a student’s silent, passive, and untargeted ideological speech simply because that speech relates to matters of personal identity, even when the speech responds to the school’s opposing views, actions, or policies.
(Relisted after the Feb. 21, Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21, Mar. Conferences on Mar. 28, Apr. 4, and Apr. 4 conferences. )
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, 24-781Issue
: Where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, is a federal court in a first-filed action deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court?
(Relisted after the Apr. Platkin, 24-781
Issue: Where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chilling effect on its First Amendment rights, is a federal court in resolving if first filed action deprived of jurisdiction because these rights must be adjudicated in state court?
(Relisted after the Apr. 17 conferences. )
Posted in Cases in the Pipeline, Featured
Cases: Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Rhode Island, Snope v. Brown, Apache Stronghold v. United States, L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts, The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. PlatkinRecommended Citation:
John Elwood,
The constitutionality of eviction bans and federal jurisdiction
SCOTUSblog
(Apr. 25, 2025, 1:39 PM),
