Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1 (1988)

Citation
Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1 (1988)
Parent Document
Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1 (1988)
Effective Date
1988-02-24

Other Sections in This Document (112)

Full Text

1,160 chars
Appellants contend that any application of the tenant hardship provision of the San Jose Ordinance would effect an uncompensated taking of private property because that provision does not substantially advance legitimate state interests and because it improperly imposes a public burden on individ*16ual landlords. I can understand how such a claim — that a law applicable to the plaintiffs is, root and branch, invalid— can be readily rejected on the merits, by merely noting that at least some of its applications may be lawful. But I do not understand how such a claim can possibly be avoided by considering it “premature.” Suppose, for example, that the feature of the rental ordinance under attack was a provision allowing a hearing officer to consider the race of the apartment owner in deciding whether to allow a rent increase. It is inconceivable that we would say judicial challenge must await demonstration that this provision has actually been applied to the detriment of one of the plaintiffs. There is no difference, it seems to me, when the facial, root-and-branch challenge rests upon the Takings Clause rather than the Equal Protection Clause.