Amicus Briefs
Community Housing Improvement Program v. City of New York
CASE SUMMARY
NCLA believes that the lower court erred when it declared that the New York Rent Stabilization Law (RSL) does not violate the due process rights of the Plaintiffs-Appellants related to their property, when in fact, it does.
Plaintiffs-appellants, NCLA argued, have a fundamental right to their property under the U.S. Constitution, so the RSL should have been subjected to strict scrutiny. Violations of fundamental rights may only be upheld if the intrusions are both “narrowly tailored” to minimize the impact on the rights in question and are necessary to achieve a “compelling state interest.” New York City’s RSL is neither of those things.
Moreover, even under lesser scrutiny, standardless perpetual emergencies violate due process because they are arbitrary and irrational. Under the RSL, the City of New York is allowed to determine that there is a “public emergency requiring the regulation of residential rents” once it is established that the vacancy rate is below a 5% threshold. When an emergency is declared, the RSL places restrictions on property owners’ rights to use, possess, occupy, and sell or otherwise dispose of covered properties.
On October 2, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Plantiffs-appellants’ petition for a writ of certiorari in this case.