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

774 chars
[6] Appellants do not claim, as do some amici, that rent control is per se a taking. We stated in Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419 (1982), that we have "consistently affirmed that States have broad power to regulate housing conditions in general and the landlord-tenant relationship in particular without paying compensation for all economic injuries that such regulation entails." Id., at 440 (citing, inter alia, Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503, 517-518 (1944)). And in FCC v. Florida Power Corp., 480 U. S. 245 (1987), we stated that "statutes regulating the economic relations of landlords and tenants are not per se takings." Id., at 252. Despite amici's urgings, we see no need to reconsider the constitutionality of rent control per se.